FCRA

Previous | Next
 rated by 0 users
Latest post 02-01-2011 7:53 PM by ClydesMom. 6 replies.
  • 01-30-2011 6:08 PM

    • DeeDee8
      Consumer
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-12-2008
    • NC
    • Posts 96

    FCRA

    A company who was trying to recruit my husband hired an agency to do a background check on him. My husband has a very common name. The company that did the background check reported information to the potential employer that was not only NOT my husband's information but had extremely negative information. Even though my husband disputed the inaccurate information, it still cost him the job. Is this defammation of character?

  • 01-30-2011 6:11 PM In reply to

    Re: FCRA

    "Is this defammation of character?"

    No and it isn't a civil rights violation either.  The background company made and error.  They are required to correct the error but the employer is not required to re-consider.  In order for it to be slander or defamation the release of the information would have had to have been knowingly false and done with the intent to cause him harm.  Since he has a common name the error was due to the confusion between him and others with that name, and not an intentional act to cost him the job.  

    "That's just my opinion, then again I might be wrong."  Dennis Miller

     

  • 01-30-2011 8:46 PM In reply to

    • DeeDee8
      Consumer
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-12-2008
    • NC
    • Posts 96

    Re: FCRA

    Excuse me but, from my research, with the exception of a bankruptcy, the background company is only permitted to go back 7 years per FCRA rule. They violated that that rule. Not to mention that the "error" as you call it, totally upset and humiliated my husband. At the very least they have violated the FCRA rules as a CRA company.

  • 01-30-2011 9:00 PM In reply to

    Re: FCRA

    "the background company is only permitted to go back 7 years per FCRA rule"

    Not for a background check paid for by the employer.  They can go back as far as the employer requests.  There is no one "background check" and if the position involved any sort of fiscal responsibility you can expect it to be quite lengthy.  As I said earlier his recourse legally is to dispute the inaccuracies with the agency that provided the information, they are obligated to issue a corrected report.  However, the FCRA does not obligate an employer to act upon a corrected report.

    Also under the FCRA:

    It is important to remember, however, that even the restrictions on reporting imposed by the FCRA do not apply to jobs with an annual salary of $75,000 or more a year. (FCRA §605(b)(3)).

     

    "That's just my opinion, then again I might be wrong."  Dennis Miller

     

  • 01-30-2011 10:53 PM In reply to

    Re: FCRA

    ClydesMom:
     In order for it to be slander or defamation the release of the information would have had to have been knowingly false and done with the intent to cause him harm.

    That's not correct as to most defamation claims. What you've stated is essentially the defamation standard that developed from line of cases starting with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). In that case, the court established an actual malice standard for defamation claims brought by public officials, stating: "We hold today that the Constitution delimits a State's power to award damages for libel in actions brought by public officials against critics of their official conduct. Since this is such an action, the rule requiring proof of actual malice is applicable." (Bolding added.) Subsequent cases have expanded that beyond government officials to others that are in the public eye.

    But as to defamation suits brought by your average Joe, it is neither necessary that the defendant knew the statement was false nor that the defendant acted with malice in making the statement. It is sufficient that the defendant communicated a false fact that injured the reputation of the plaintiff and thereby caused the plaintiff to suffer damages. The defendant's BELIEF that the statement was true is not relevant.

  • 02-01-2011 7:50 PM In reply to

    • DeeDee8
      Consumer
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on 02-12-2008
    • NC
    • Posts 96

    Re: FCRA

    Dear Clydesmom,

     

    Do you know of a lawyer here in charlotte nc that could take this case?

  • 02-01-2011 7:53 PM In reply to

    Re: FCRA

    No.  Site rules prohibit referrals and no NC attorneys participate in the boards.  Site rules also prohibit soliciting clients from the boards.  You can use the "Find A Lawyer" feature to locate a NC licensed attorney to discuss the case with.

    "That's just my opinion, then again I might be wrong."  Dennis Miller

     

Page 1 of 1 (7 items) | RSS

My Community

Community Membership New Users: Search Community