20.  EVHC conducts background checks, which include investigations of criminal  history, of its job applicants as part of its standard screening and hiring process.   21.  In addition, EVHC periodically conducts such background checks on existing  employees during the course of their employment with EVHC.   22.  EVHC does not perform these background checks in-house. Rather, EVHC relies  on outside consumer reporting firms to obtain this information and report it to EVHC for a fee.   24.  One of the outside consumer reporting firms EVHC has utilized is InfoCubic,  located at 9250 East Costilla Avenue, Suite 525, Greenwood Village, Colorado 80112.   25.  InfoCubic is a “consumer reporting agency” under the FCRA.    26.  EVHC purchases “consumer reports” from InfoCubic on a regular and frequent  basis.   27.  As it pertains to the FCRA’s violations, EVHC’s online employment application  process is standardized across the United States, and applicants follow the same steps in applying  for a job regardless of whether they seek employment with “EmCare”, “Evolution Health”,  “American Medical Response”, “AMR”, “Air Ambulance Specialists”, “MedicWest”, “Guardian  Healthcare”, “Reimbursement Technologies” or any other division of EVHC.   28.  When any applicant applies for employment with EVHC online, EVHC’s website  directs the applicant through an identical set of steps to apply for the desired job opening,  irrespective of the type of job, the location of the job, or the division / subsidiary in which the job  resides. 2   29.  For instance, irrespective of whether an individual seeks employment with  American Medical Response, EmCare, or Evolution Health (divisions / subsidiaries of EVHC),  each such applicant is directed to the same website page as its starting point, and thereafter, each  applicant follows the identical procedures to complete an employment application with EVHC’s  divisions / subsidiaries. Id.   31.  Similarly, EVHC includes other prohibited extraneous language in the online job  application portion seeking authorization and providing the FCRA’s required disclosures prior to  obtaining a background information report (i.e., “consumer report”) on the job applicant. Id.   32.  No subsequent attempt to cure these violations is effective. EVHC’s violations of  the FCRA continue because the release of liability is not limited in time, and any additional  allegedly corrected disclosures serve only to defeat the “clear and conspicuous” and “in a  document that consists solely of the disclosure” requirement of the FCRA.  EVHC’S violations of the FCRA relating to Background Check Class   33.  EVHC procured consumer report information in violation of the FCRA.   34.  The FCRA makes it unlawful to procure a consumer report or cause a consumer  report to be procured for employment purposes, unless:  i)  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; and  ii)  the consumer has authorized in writing (which authorization may be made  on the document referred to in clause (i)) the procurement of the report.  15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii) [emphasis supplied].   35.  EVHC has not satisfied these disclosure and authorization requirements.   37.  The sequential steps of the online job application process are uniform across  EVHC’s various job openings at its various locations across the United States. Id.   38.  On the last page of a standard 6-page online employment application, EVHC  purports to include in a lengthy paragraph, in obscurely small sized font, an authorization  seeking permission to obtain the job applicant’s background information for EVHC’s hiring  decision. 4     39.  The paragraph reads in part as follows:  50.  Mr. Landrum applied for work with EVHC on October 26, 2013, by completing  EVHC’s standard online employment application.10   51.  As discussed, EVHC’s standard online employment application failed to obtain  proper authorization from Mr. Landrum under the FCRA; EVHC similarly failed to make the  proper disclosure to Mr. Landrum required under the FCRA. Id.   52.  EVHC’s standard online employment application violated the FCRA by  impermissibly requiring Mr. Landrum to release not only EVHC, but also numerous other parties  and individuals. Id.   53.  EVHC’s standard online employment application further violated the FCRA by  including additional extraneous language in the disclosure. Id.   54.  At no time between (a) Mr. Landrum’s application for employment with EVHC  on October 26, 2013, and (b) EVHC’s adverse employment decision, did EVHC give Mr.  Landrum a copy of the consumer background report as is required by the FCRA.   55.  EVHC violated FCRA’s pre-adverse action notice requirements after it reviewed  Mr. Landrum’s criminal background report and decided not to offer employment to him.   57.  Subsequently, after learning that EVHC would not hire him, Mr. Landrum was  placed with the impermissible burden a) to discover why he was not hired; b) to himself obtain  the background report from the consumer reporting agency after EVHC had already decided not  to hire him (instead of automatically receiving it from EVHC before being notified by EVHC  that he was not going to be hired); and c) to require Mr. Landrum to obtain and supply EVHC a  corrected background report as a condition of being hired with the company.   58.  Thereafter, although EVHC briefly employed Mr. Landrum, it did not cure  EVHC’s violations of the FCRA occurring prior to such employment.   59.  Had Mr. Landrum not insisted on inquiring (on his own initiative) about why he  was un-hirable with EVHC, and had he not made the un-required effort to obtain a corrected  background report himself, he would have not have been hired by EVHC.   60.  Regardless, EVHC violated the FCRA as to Mr. Landrum, and indeed, as to  numerous other similarly situated individuals over the relevant five-year look-back period.   61.  It was unlawful for EVHC to procure a consumer report without proper  authorization and without first making the proper disclosures the FCRA required.  By doing so,  EVHC had no permissible purpose to receive and review Mr. Landrum’s consumer report.     62.  Similarly, it was unlawful for EVHC to not provide Mr. Landrum a copy of his  consumer report in the statutorily required timeframe.   64.  Plaintiff asserts his claim in Count 1 on behalf of a Putative Adverse Class  defined as follows:  Proposed Adverse Action Class:  All employees or prospective employees of  EVHC who received notice on or after October 26, 2008 (or who did not receive  any such required notice) that EVHC was taking adverse employment action  against them based, in whole or in part, on information contained in a consumer  report, and (i) who were not given a copy of such report in advance, or (ii) were  not provided a copy, in writing, of the FCRA’s disclosure document entitled       “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act”.   65.  Plaintiff asserts his claim in Counts 2 and 3 on behalf of a Putative Background  Check Class defined as follows:  Proposed Background Check Class:  All employees or prospective employees  of EVHC who were the subject of a consumer report procured by EVHC (or that  EVHC caused to be procured) on or after October 26, 2008.   66.  Numerosity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a): The Putative Classes are so numerous  that joinder of all class members is impracticable. EVHC regularly purchases and utilizes  information in consumer reports to conduct background checks on prospective employees and  existing employees, and frequently relies on such information, in whole or in part, as a basis for  adverse employment action. Upon information and belief, during the relevant time period, more  than five thousand (5,000) employees and prospective employees satisfy the definition of the  Putative Classes.   68.  Adequacy under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a): Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect  the interests of the Putative Classes, and has retained counsel experienced in complex class  action litigation.   71.  Members of the Putative Classes do not have an interest in pursuing separate  actions against Defendant, as the amount of each Class member’s individual claims is small  compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution, and Plaintiff is unaware of any  similar claims brought against Defendant by any members of the Putative Classes on an  individual basis. Class certification also will obviate the need for unduly duplicative litigation  that might result in inconsistent judgments concerning Defendant’s practices.   72.  Moreover, management of this action as a class action will not present any likely  difficulties. In the interests of justice and judicial efficiency, it would be desirable to concentrate  the litigation of all Putative Class members’ claims in a single forum.   73.  Plaintiff intends to send notice to all members of the Putative Classes to the extent  required by Rule 23. The names and addresses of the Putative Class members are available from  Defendant’s records.  EVHC conducts employment background checks (including criminal background checks)  during its hiring process  