A Washington, D.C.-area job seeker has filed a lawsuit against ADP’s background screening arm, alleging a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The plaintiff claims that the company inaccurately reported him as a convicted murderer to a prospective employer. This incident has raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of background screening processes used by employment screening services.
Allegations of inaccurate reporting
According to the lawsuit, the defendant, SASS (ADP’s background screening arm), provided a report to an employer that included a criminal record seemingly listing the job seeker’s name as an alias for a convicted armed murderer. The report was sold to the employer without verifying the accuracy of the information.
Failure to conduct proper review
The lawsuit alleges that SASS failed to conduct even a cursory review of widely available public court records. Had they done so, they would have realized that the murder conviction belonged to another person entirely. This lack of thoroughness and verification potentially led to serious consequences for the job seeker.
Disputing the report
When the job seeker discovered the inaccurate report, he disputed the information and submitted his own findings to SASS. It was only after his intervention that SASS removed the wrongful criminal record. This incident raises questions about the effectiveness and reliability of SASS’s background screening procedures.
Violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
In his lawsuit, the job seeker alleges that SASS violated the FCRA by failing to use “reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information” provided to the employer. The FCRA mandates that consumer reporting agencies ensure the accuracy and fairness of the information in their reports. The lawsuit seeks appropriate remedies for the damages suffered by the plaintiff.
Previous class action settlement
This is not the first time ADP and SASS have faced legal action for inaccurate reporting. Last year, ADP settled a proposed class action in which SASS incorrectly reported an individual as a convicted drug dealer. These repeated incidents highlight potential issues with SASS’s background screening practices and call into question their reliability as a service provider.
Lack of further investigation
One of the critical allegations in the current lawsuit is that SASS did not conduct sufficient further investigations to confirm whether the job seeker and the individual named in the court record were the same person. This failure to dig deeper and ensure accuracy raises concerns about the thoroughness of SASS’s background screening process.
Employers’ Rights and Obligations
It is essential to note that employers have the right to inquire about the backgrounds of job applicants or employees. However, they must comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws when using background information to make employment decisions. The Federal Trade Commission emphasizes the need for employers to exercise caution and follow the guidelines to preserve the rights and reputations of individuals.
Impact on the job seeker
The consequences of this inaccurate reporting have been significant for the job seeker. The fear of losing a well-paying job and the false representation as a murderer have caused the plaintiff immense stress, anxiety, and fear of damage to his reputation. This incident underscores the potential harm that can arise from incorrect background screening reports and the need for accurate procedures to protect the rights of job seekers.
The lawsuit against ADP’s background screening arm, SASS, highlights the importance of accurate reporting and thorough verification processes in background screening. The allegations made by the job seeker, coupled with a previous class action settlement, raise concerns about the reliability of SASS’s procedures. It is crucial for employers to exercise prudence when using background information to avoid such incidents and comply with anti-discrimination laws to ensure fairness in their employment decisions. As this lawsuit progresses, the outcome will shed light on the responsibility of background screening service providers to maintain the integrity and accuracy of the information they provide to employers.