Uber Suit Highlights Risk of Pre-Employment Background Checks
The number of lawsuits against Uber, Inc. appears to be growing almost as quickly as the company’s app-based car service. The latest lawsuit involves the company’s use of pre-employment background checks.
The proposed class-action suit, which was filed in New Jersey federal court, alleges that Uber violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by denying applicants the opportunity to dispute the information contained in the reports of their pre-employment background checks. The company is facing similar suits in California.
Cuccinello v. Uber
According to the complaint in Cuccinello v. Uber, Uber contracted with consumer reporting agency Hirease Inc. to obtain background reports on prospective drivers in order to conduct thorough pre-employment background checks. The plaintiffs, Joseph Cuccinello and James Brooks, allege that they were denied employment based on the content of their reports, but were never provided with copies of the reports or given the opportunity to dispute information contained in their criminal, financial and employment histories. The suit further alleges that the online forms in which they consented to the background checks “unlawfully attempted to obtain future protection for defendants for any unlawful actions, and included other limitations on consumer protections and other extraneous language.”
FCRA vs. Businesses
As we have discussed in prior posts, the FCRA has consistently been a litigation trap for unwary businesses. The federal statute imposes several requirements on employers who wish to conduct pre-employment background checks on job applicants, such as obtaining credit reports and criminal records.
Among other legal requirements under the FCRA, employers must notify applicants that they might use information in their consumer report for decisions related to their employment and obtain written authorization to obtain the reports. This written disclosure must be in a stand-alone format separate from the job application and not contain any other content, although it may be contained with the authorization.
Prior to rejecting a job application (or taking any other adverse employment action) based on information found in these pre-employment background checks, employers must give the applicant or employee a notice that includes a copy of the consumer report the employer relied on to make the decision, as well as a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
As highlighted by the Uber suit, the failure to take the above compliance steps can result in a costly lawsuit. The FCRA authorizes statutory damages of up to $1,000 per class member as well as punitive damages, actual damages and attorney’s fees. Accordingly, it is wise to review your FCRA compliance, particularly with respect to online applications.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Uber Suit Highlights Risk of Pre-Employment Background Checks
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Uber Suit Highlights Risk of Pre-Employment Background Checks
The number of lawsuits against Uber, Inc. appears to be growing almost as quickly as the company’s app-based car service. The latest lawsuit involves the company’s use of pre-employment background checks.
The proposed class-action suit, which was filed in New Jersey federal court, alleges that Uber violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by denying applicants the opportunity to dispute the information contained in the reports of their pre-employment background checks. The company is facing similar suits in California.
Cuccinello v. Uber
According to the complaint in Cuccinello v. Uber, Uber contracted with consumer reporting agency Hirease Inc. to obtain background reports on prospective drivers in order to conduct thorough pre-employment background checks. The plaintiffs, Joseph Cuccinello and James Brooks, allege that they were denied employment based on the content of their reports, but were never provided with copies of the reports or given the opportunity to dispute information contained in their criminal, financial and employment histories. The suit further alleges that the online forms in which they consented to the background checks “unlawfully attempted to obtain future protection for defendants for any unlawful actions, and included other limitations on consumer protections and other extraneous language.”
FCRA vs. Businesses
As we have discussed in prior posts, the FCRA has consistently been a litigation trap for unwary businesses. The federal statute imposes several requirements on employers who wish to conduct pre-employment background checks on job applicants, such as obtaining credit reports and criminal records.
Among other legal requirements under the FCRA, employers must notify applicants that they might use information in their consumer report for decisions related to their employment and obtain written authorization to obtain the reports. This written disclosure must be in a stand-alone format separate from the job application and not contain any other content, although it may be contained with the authorization.
Prior to rejecting a job application (or taking any other adverse employment action) based on information found in these pre-employment background checks, employers must give the applicant or employee a notice that includes a copy of the consumer report the employer relied on to make the decision, as well as a copy of A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
As highlighted by the Uber suit, the failure to take the above compliance steps can result in a costly lawsuit. The FCRA authorizes statutory damages of up to $1,000 per class member as well as punitive damages, actual damages and attorney’s fees. Accordingly, it is wise to review your FCRA compliance, particularly with respect to online applications.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
