Walmart’s Motion to Decertify Class Granted in Background Check Case
Tags : FCRA Compliance
On Oct. 18, a class of approximately 6.5 million Walmart applicants was decertified by a California federal judge based on the determination that the named plaintiffs had failed to allege an injury sufficient to meet the Spokeo standing bar.
In January, 2019, U.S. District Judge David O. Carter certified a class comprised of millions of Walmart job applicants who collectively alleged that the company had committed Fair Credit Reporting Act and California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agency Act violations. The basis of the allegation was that Walmart had not provided applicants with sufficient background check disclosure forms between June 2012 and March 2019.
Early on in the litigation process, the judge determined that the plaintiffs had sufficiently met the Article III standing bar in Spokeo v. Robins as established by the U.S. Supreme Court. As the case progressed, it would become the plaintiffs' burden to assert concrete injury and not simply a statutory violation. As the dispute proceeded to summary judgment phase, the plaintiffs were charged with supplying more "specific facts" to establish standing as opposed to the base allegations that had previously been sustaining the class's status and case. The class decertification occurred as a result of the judge determining that the named plaintiffs failed to provide more concrete proof as was required. According to the judge's written order, the "named plaintiffs have failed to identify an injury stemming from this statutory violation that can suffice to support Article III standing."
Judge Carter referenced the Spokeo dispute in reaching his determination, which similarly involved alleged FCRA violations. The judge noted that the Supreme Court refrained from establishing standing based solely on procedural violation, requiring that concrete injury must be proven as well. In both cases, the plaintiffs alleged only bare procedural violations.
Walmart argued for summary judgement in its favor by the district court; however, Judge Carter ruled that whether the plaintiffs could establish standing or certify as a class under the California law standards still remained to be addressed, ultimately concluding that, "the court will accordingly allow the state court, in the exercise of its proper parallel jurisdiction, to determine whether plaintiffs have standing under California law." As such, the Walmart dispute returns to Orange County Superior Court, where the case was originally filed in June 2017.
Posted: October 25, 2019
All Rights Reserved © 2019 Business Information Group, Inc.
This document and/or presentation is provided as a service to our customers. Its contents are designed solely for informational purposes, and should not be inferred or understood as legal advice or binding case law, nor shared with any third parties. Persons in need of legal assistance should seek the advice of competent legal counsel. Although care has been taken in preparation of these materials, we cannot guarantee the accuracy, currency or completeness of the information contained within it. Anyone using this information does so at his or her own risk.
We cannot express enough how much we have enjoyed working with BIG! It has really benefitted our processing and ease of doing business!
I enjoy collaborating with BIG, and know that if I have to reach out with a question/concern, a positive attitude with a willingness to find resolve is on the other side of an email or a phone call.
You have been the most professional and most helpful business partner that I have ever been associated with — always there to assist us and with rapid turnaround times.
I am confident whenever we add a product with your company that I will have a good experience.
We have received superior service and we know this is what you and your team strive for. We are grateful for the dedication, level of professionalism and effort shown.