Yale Associates Alleged to Report Inaccurate Info in Employment Reports

This class action alleges that Yale Associates, a database of public records and employment histories, provided inaccurate information that overstated legal offenses in a way that caused the plaintiff to lose a job he had been offered, and also that it did not provide the plaintiff with timely notice of the report.

Yale Associates maintains a database of public records and employment histories that qualifies it as a nationwide consumer reporting agency under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The company creates reports, for example, for prospective employers.

Under the FCRA, Yale is required to maintain systems to ensure the accuracy of its information, and, when it reports matters that are likely to have an adverse effect on a person’s ability to obtain a job, it is required to notify the person in question.

The complaint first concerns Yale’s reporting of summary offenses. Under Pennsylvania law, offenses are classified as felonies, misdemeanors, or summary offense. Summary offenses are less serious than felonies or misdemeanors and seldom result in prison sentences. Unlike felonies or misdemeanors, under certain conditions they may be expunged from the record after five years.

Pennsylvania’s summary offenses include things such as attaching a nail or tack to a utility pole, littering, disorderly conduct, loitering, and retail theft. Summary offenses may be initiated by citation and may often be resolved simply by paying fines or costs, without going to court. Those accused of summary offenses do not have the right to a lawyer.

While Pennsylvania law permits prospective employers to consider felonies or misdemeanors to determine a job applicant’s suitability to a position, it does not permit them to consider summary offenses. Despite these differences in offenses, the complaint alleges that Yale frequently reports summary offenses from Pennsylvania as misdemeanors.

While the plaintiff did have one actual misdemeanor on his record, he claims that he told his prospective employer about it and was still offered the job. However, after the purchase of a report from Yale, listing four summary offenses as misdemeanors as well, the employer decided not to hire him.

The complaint alleges that the FCRA requires Yale to assure the maximum possible accuracy of its records, and that its inaccurate reporting of summary offenses as more serious misdemeanors violates this requirement. In addition, the plaintiff claims he had to make numerous requests to Yale for a copy of the report and received it much later than required.

This action proposes two classes:

(a) All US persons who, during the class period, were the subject of a Yale report for the purposes of employment to whom Yale failed to mail a written notice of the report within the proper time frame.

(b) All US persons who, during the class period, were the subjects of a Yale report which listed a Pennsylvania summary offense as a misdemeanor or more serious offense.

The class period runs from November 24, 2010 through the resolution of this case. 

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Background Reports, Unfair Services, Your Privacy