We're celebrating 10 Days of Membership! Today's Gift: Receive $20 to Amazon.com with a professional membership with promo 10DAYSAM
Training, policies and tools to help HR prevent and respond to harassment claims.
Is your employee handbook keeping up with the changing world of work? With SHRM's Employee Handbook Builder get peace of mind that your handbook is up-to-date.
Develop your HR competencies and knowledge in-person in 12 U.S. cities or virtually.
#SHRM18 will expand your perspective – on your organization, on your career, and on the way you approach HR. Join us in Chicago June 17-20, 2018
Case has implications for employers using online background checks
A mere technical violation of the law may not injure a plaintiff enough for him or her to be able to sue, a May 16 Supreme Court decision shows.
There must be real harm to sue—or “concrete” harm, in the words of the court, which sent a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case back to a lower court to determine whether the plaintiff in the case suffered real harm (Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 (2016)).
“For employers facing class-action litigation from employees or former employees, where the harm alleged historically has been something very short of concrete, Spokeo gives defendants another weapon in the arsenal for defending against such claims,” said Emily Keimig, an attorney at Sherman & Howard in Denver.
Thomas Robins, the plaintiff, sued Spokeo, which operates a “people search engine” and is an alleged consumer reporting agency covered by FCRA, after he discovered numerous errors on its website about him. His profile on Spokeo stated that he was married, has children, is in his 50s, has a job, is relatively affluent and holds a graduate degree—none of which is true, according to Robins.
Robins sued Spokeo, alleging it violated the FCRA. The district court dismissed his claim, ruling that he had not properly pleaded that he was in fact injured, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit and sent the case back to the appeals court to determine if there was concrete harm.
The high court noted that, to have standing to sue, the following circumstances must apply:
The 9th Circuit skipped over the concreteness requirement, according to the Supreme Court. “When we have used the adjective ‘concrete,’ we have meant to convey the usual meaning of the term—‘real,’ and not ‘abstract,’ ” the high court stated.
Intangible injuries and the risk of real harm can be concrete harm, the court noted. But “Robins could not, for example, allege a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III,” the court said in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito Jr.
Although it sent the case back to the 9th Circuit, the Supreme Court said it was not taking any position as to whether the 9th Circuit’s ultimate conclusion—that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact—was correct.
However, in a dissent joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Robins had clearly suffered concrete harm. “Far from an incorrect zip code, Robins complains of misinformation about his education, family situation, and economic status, inaccurate representations that could affect his fortune in the job market,” she wrote.
“While Spokeo won a victory here, its victory is very narrow,” Keimig said. “Spokeo and other companies like it should take heed, and so should those who use such online reporting services, particularly when making decisions about matters such as employment.” She added that missing out on a job “will almost certainly serve to illustrate a concrete harm.”
Pamela Devata, an attorney with Seyfarth Shaw in Chicago, said many plaintiffs allege under FCRA that there was harm when they simultaneously receive a disclosure that a background check will be run and a written authorization for the background check to be processed. There’s good language in the Spokeo decision that suggests these plaintiffs may not have suffered harm if they are hired. But it’s safest to keep the disclosure and written authorization separate, she said.
Allen Smith, J.D., is the manager of workplace law content for SHRM. Follow him @SHRMlegaleditor.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in again before saving bookmarks.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Recommended for you
Five key facts about High-energy visible (HEV) a.k.a. “blue light”
Join SHRM's exclusive peer-to-peer social network
SHRM’s HR Vendor Directory contains over 3,200 companies