17.  Sterling is among the largest of the nation’s employment background screening  companies, i.e., those that provide “consumer reports,” as defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1)(B),  to prospective employers and employers.   18.  Sterling investigates and reviews public records and private databases and  assembles and/or maintains consumer files which contain information concerning, among other  things, the alleged criminal, credit and employment history of individuals.     19.  From its files, Sterling sells background consumer reports to potential employers  (such as Defendants State Street, HMG, and HCL) wishing to screen applicants for employment.   According to its website, Sterling “is the world’s largest company focused entirely on background  checks.”   http://www.sterlingbackcheck.com/About /Company-Profile.aspx.    21.  State Street, HMG, and/or HCL use Sterling’s screening services to conduct  background checks on applicants for employment. The background reports resulting from these  services are delivered directly to State Street.  Upon information and belief, State Street, HMG,  and/or HCL use Sterling’s scoring services.   22.  Sterling is also a “user” of consumer reports, in that it obtains consumer reports  from other consumer reporting agencies, such as Trans Union, LLC, and incorporates them into  its background checks which it uses to adjudicate candidates for employment.  See Goode v.  LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 2d 532, 542-43 (E.D. Pa. 2012) (consumer reporting  agency can be liable as user of consumer reports).   23.  Under the FCRA, a “user” of a consumer report, such as Sterling, State Street,  HMG, and HCL may not lawfully obtain any background consumer report on any prospective job  applicant, or “consumer” as used in the FCRA, unless “a clear and conspicuous disclosure has  been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or caused to be  procured, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be  obtained for employment purposes.”  15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis supplied).   25.  Each Defendant knew or should have known that its failure to provide a stand-alone  disclosure was a violation of the FCRA because the statutory language of section 1681b(b)(2)(A)  was pellucidly clear that no one may procure a consumer report, or cause a consumer report to be  procured, for employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unless “a clear and conspicuous  disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or  caused to be procured, in a document that consists solely1 of the disclosure, that a consumer report  may be obtained for employment purposes.”  15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis supplied).   27.  Numerous courts interpreting the FCRA have found FTC opinion letters  persuasive.  See, e.g., Owner–Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. USIS Commercial, 537  F.3d 1184, 1192 (10th Cir. 2008); Morris v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 457 F.3d 460, 468 (5th Cir.  2006).  See also, Gager v. Dell Financial Services, LLC, 727 F.3d 265, 271-72 n.5 (3d Cir. 2013)  (affording some deference to Federal Communication Commission analysis and finding it  persuasive in interpreting Telephone Consumer Protection Act).   28.  Further, a “user” of a consumer report, such as State Street, HMG, HCL, and  Sterling who intends to take any “adverse action” against a job applicant “based in whole or in  part” on information obtained from the consumer report must provide notice of that fact to the  consumer job applicant, and must include with the notice a copy of the consumer report and a  notice of the consumer’s dispute rights under the FCRA, before taking the adverse action.  15  U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A).     29.  State Street, HMG, HCL, and Sterling each systematically fail to send any notice,  copy of a consumer report, or a notice of consumers’ FCRA rights before taking adverse  employment action on the basis of consumer reports.   31.  A primary reason that Congress required that a person intending to take an adverse  action based on information in a consumer report provide the report to the consumer before taking  the adverse action is so the consumer has time to review the report and dispute information that  may be inaccurate, or discuss the report with the prospective employer before adverse action is  taken.  See Federal Trade Commission letter dated December 18, 1997 to Harold R. Hawkey, Esq.  (“[T]he clear purpose of the provision to allow consumers to discuss reports with employers or  otherwise respond before adverse action is taken.”).   32.  Numerous courts interpreting the FCRA have found FTC opinion letters  persuasive.  See, e.g., Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass’n, Inc. v. USIS Commercial, 537  F.3d 1184, 1192 (10th Cir. 2008); Morris v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 457 F.3d 460, 468 (5th Cir.  2006).  See also Gager v. Dell Fin. Servs., LLC, 727 F.3d 265, 271-72 n.5 (3d Cir. 2013) (affording  some deference to Federal Communication Commission analysis and finding it persuasive in  interpreting Telephone Consumer Protection Act).   34.  The reasons for the “pre-adverse action notice” requirement with regard to  employment situations are to alert the consumer job applicant that he or she is about to experience  an adverse action, such as a rejection, based on a report’s contents, and to provide him or her an  opportunity to challenge the accuracy, completeness or relevancy of the information with the  consumer reporting agency or the user before that job prospect or job is lost.    The Facts Pertaining to Class Representative Plaintiff Andres Abreu   35.  Plaintiff Andres Abreu applied for employment with State Street through HMG and  HCL as a desktop support engineer in early September 2014, and was interviewed via a video  conference call.    36.  In connection with the onboarding process, Defendant State Street required Mr.  Abreu to sign a separate “Consent to Request Consumer Report & Investigative Consumer Report  Information” form that is not the stand-alone disclosure required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(2).  The background check application form appears to be one provided by Sterling to some of its  customers.      38.  The background check application form that Defendant State Street required Mr.  Abreu to sign was not the “clear and conspicuous disclosure … in a document that consists solely  of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes” as required  by section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) of the FCRA.   39.  Neither HMG nor Sterling obtained Mr. Abreu’s consent to obtain a consumer  report for employment purposes using any written document at all.   40.  On or about September 5, 2014, “State Street via Sterling Infosystems” obtained a  consumer report about Plaintiff from Trans Union, LLC for employment purposes.   41.  On or about September 5, 2014, Sterling used Plaintiff’s Trans Union report to  generated its own report, which scored Plaintiff as “DISQUALIFIED” for employment.    42.  On September 9, 2014, Plaintiff was sent an offer letter by HMG for the desktop  support engineer position, which Mr. Abreu accepted in writing the following day, on September  10, 2014.   44.  At no point did State Street, HCL, HMG, or Sterling provide Mr. Abreu with a pre- adverse action notice or a copy of his Sterling or Trans Union reports or a statement of FCRA  rights as required by FCRA section 1681b(b)(3).   45.  Shortly after September 9, 2014, a representative of HMG contacted Mr. Abreu via  telephone and informed him that the job offer with State Street was rescinded because of “credit  information.”  Mr. Abreu did not have a copy of the Sterling or Trans Union reports that were the  source(s) of this information, or an opportunity to dispute this determination.         46.  As a direct result of Defendants unlawfully obtaining and using the Sterling and  Trans Union background reports, Mr. Abreu lost the job opportunity at State Street and suffered  actual damages, including wage and other pecuniary loss, humiliation, embarrassment and  emotional distress.  48.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definition of the Classes based on discovery  or legal developments.   49.  Numerosity.  FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(1).  The Class members are so numerous that  joinder of all is impractical.  Upon information and belief, Defendants obtain signed standardized  background check application forms for background reports and procure and use hundreds if not  thousands of consumer reports on applicants for employment each year, and those persons’ names  and addresses are identifiable through documents maintained by Defendants.   51.  Typicality.  FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(3).  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims  of each Class member.  Plaintiff has the same claims for statutory, actual and punitive damages  that he seeks for absent class members.    52.  Adequacy.  FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(4).  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the  Classes.  His interests are aligned with, and are not antagonistic to, the interests of the members of  the Classes he seeks to represent.  He has retained counsel competent and experienced in such  litigation, and he intends to prosecute this action vigorously.  Plaintiff and his counsel will fairly  and adequately protect the interests of members of the Classes.   54.   Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as  alleged above.   55.  Plaintiff is a “consumer,” as defined by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).   56.  Defendants State Street, HMG, and Sterling are each “persons” as defined by the  FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(b).   57.  The Sterling background reports ordered by Defendants State Street and HMG are  “consumer reports” used for “employment purposes” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(d)  and 1681a(h).   59.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as alleged  above.   60.  The FCRA provides that any person “using a consumer report for employment  purposes” who intends to take any “adverse action based in whole or in part on the report,” must  provide the consumer with a copy of the report and a written description of the consumer’s rights  under the FCRA, as prescribed by the Federal Trade Commission, before taking such adverse  action.  15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A).    61.  For purposes of this requirement, an “adverse action” includes “any . . . decision   .  . . that adversely affects any current or prospective employee.”  15 U.S.C. § 1681a(k)(1)(B)(ii).   62.  The FCRA requires Defendants State Street, HMG, HCL, and Sterling, as users of  consumer reports for employment purposes, to provide notice and certain documents to the  applicant before taking adverse action based in whole or in part on the report.  Those mandatory  disclosures include a copy of the consumer’s report and a written description of the consumer’s  rights under the FCRA.  15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i), (ii).   Background:  Defendants’ Use of Sterling’s Background Screening Reports   Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)  (Plaintif and Classes v. State Street, HMG, HCL, and Sterling)   Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)  (Plaintiff and Classes v. State Street, HMG, and Sterling)  