Plaintiff Jonathan Santiago Rosario from Colorado claimed that he was denied a job in Starbucks due to inaccurate results of a background check without giving him a chance to prove the accusation, Top Class Actions reports. Accordingly, he sued the popular coffee shop for violating the provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act or FCRA.
The facts of the case show that in March 2016, Rosario applied for a job in Starbucks located in Castle Rock, Colo. A background check, conducted by Accurate Background, was performed which listed criminal felony and misdemeanor records in Pennsylvania. Thereafter, a letter was sent to Rosario on April 20 informing him of the result which failed to meet the company's needed requirements. Rosario claimed that by the time he received such, they already removed him for consideration. Further, he believes that the criminal history is inaccurate and false which is a result of identity theft. More so, when what was shown was a crime committed in Pennsylvania which, he clarifies, was a place he has never been to.
The proceeding events turned out to be futile. Despite challenging the results and sending calls to Starbucks to revive his application, after Accurate Background confirmed that a corrected reported had already been forwarded, the company still declined to take notice of his efforts.
According to Consumer, an employer may ask all sorts of information regarding the applicant's background during the hiring process. FCRA allows the use of consumer reports to make employment decisions. Moreover, the law states that when the employer finds something negative in the applicant's background reports, it must tell the latter that he has the right to dispute the accuracy and completeness of the information provided.
In this case, Starbucks failed to give Rosario his right thus violating the pre-adverse action notification requirements in the FCRA. As a result, a nationwide plaintiff Class was proposed by Rosario for individuals in the U.S. who applied for a job in Starbucks and like him, after the background check results proved otherwise, was not given the summary of rights by the company as mandated by the law.
