10.  On or about August 5, 2013, a representative of Peak Systems, Inc., an information  technology staffing firm, contacted Ms. Plasters regarding employment with UBS on a long-term  project beginning immediately and continuing for at least eighteen months.   11.  On August 12, 2013, Ms. Plasters began working for UBS as an independent  contractor.   12.  On or about August 29, 2013, UBS requested that Ms. Plasters complete and return  a standardized form document entitled “NOTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION” allowing  UBS to procure a consumer report investigating her background and credit history through  “CARCO, and/or any other agent acting on UBS’s behalf.”   14.  In connection with her work for UBS, Ms. Plasters agreed to UBS’s requirement of  a background check and consumer report by Carco.  On August 29, 2013, Ms. Plasters signed the  “NOTIFICATION AND AUTHORIZATION” form supplied by UBS.   15.  Upon information and belief, the Notification and Authorization form is a  standardized form document typically used by UBS in the course of its employment hiring  practices and policies, and Defendant has required consumer job applicants to sign that form in  connection with hundreds, if not thousands, of job applications over the years.   16.  The Notification and Authorization stated in pertinent part as follows: “I authorize  all corporations, credit agencies, financial institutions, educational institutions, courts, law  enforcement agencies, former employers, business associates and/or any other person and/or entity  to release information they may have about me to any of the companies referenced above, and I  release the companies and persons disclosing this information from any liability and  responsibility in doing so.”  (Emphasis added).   17.  The Notification and Authorization violated section 1681b(b)(2) of the FCRA  because it did not consist “solely of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for  employment purposes.”  15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i); Reardon v. Closetmaid Corp., 2013 WL  6231606 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2013); Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 2012 WL 245965 (D. Md.  Jan. 25, 2012).   18.  Upon information and belief, Carco performed a background check about Ms.  Plasters on or about August 29, 2013 for employment purposes and provided the results to UBS.   20.  Ms. Plasters contacted UBS seeking a copy of the report upon which the decision  was based, but received no response.   21.  Section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA requires that “in using a consumer report for  employment purposes, before taking any adverse action based in whole or in part on the report,  the person intending to take such adverse action shall provide to the consumer to whom the report  relates” a copy of the report and a written description of the consumer’s rights under the FCRA.     22.  In connection with Ms. Plasters, UBS was a “person intending to take” adverse  action within the meaning of the FCRA.   23.  UBS did not provide to Ms. Plasters a copy of the consumer report or a written  statement of her rights under the FCRA.  As a matter of policy and practice, UBS does not provide  notice to prospective or current employees or independent contractors, or copies of any consumer  reports they obtain which contain adverse public record information, prior to taking adverse  actions against them.   24.  UBS’s practices and procedures described herein affected not only the Plaintiff but  also other prospective and existing employees and independent contractors against whom adverse  action was taken.   25.  At all times pertinent hereto, UBS was acting by and through its agents, servants  and/or employees who were acting within the scope and course of their agency or employment,  and under the direct supervision and control of the Defendant herein.   27.  Plaintiff brings this action individual and as a class action for UBS’s violations of  section 1681b(b)(2) and 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following Classes:  (a)  All natural persons residing within the United States and its Territories  regarding whom, beginning two (2) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing  through the conclusion of this action, the Defendant procured or caused to be procured a consumer  report for employment purposes using a written disclosure containing language substantially  similar in form to the Notification and Authorization form provided to Plaintiff Plasters described  above.  (b)  All natural persons residing within the United States who (i) within two (2)  years prior to the filing of the Complaint; (ii) were the subject of a consumer report used by  Defendant for employment purposes; (iii) were the subject of an adverse employment action by  Defendant; and, (iv) were not provided with a copy of the report and/or a written summary of their  rights under the FCRA prior to the adverse action.   29.  There are questions of law and fact common to the Class that predominate over any  questions affecting only individual Class members.  The principal questions include whether UBS  willfully violated section 1681b(b)(2) of the FCRA by procuring or causing to be procured  consumer reports for employment purposes without providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure  in a document that consists solely of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for  employment purposes, and whether UBS willfully violated section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA by  employing a policy and practice of failing to provide consumers with a copy of the consumer report  about them before taking an adverse employment action based upon that information.   30.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class, which all arise from the  same operative facts and are based upon the same legal theories.   31.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.  Plaintiff is  committed to vigorously litigating this matter.  Plaintiff has secured counsel experienced in  handling consumer class actions.  Neither Plaintiff nor her counsel has any interests which might  cause them not to vigorously pursue this claim.   33.  A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy.  The interest of Class members in individually controlling the prosecution of separate  claims against UBS is small as the maximum statutory damages are limited to $1,000.00 under the  FCRA.  Management of the Class claims is likely to present significantly fewer difficulties than  those presented in many individual claims.  The identities of the Class members may be obtained  from UBS’s records.  VI.  6.  Among other things, the FCRA regulates the collection, maintenance, and  disclosure of consumer credit and background information reported by consumer reporting  agencies (“CRAs”) and used by employers such as UBS.   7.  Before taking any adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, the person,  such as an employer, intending to take such adverse action shall provide a copy of the report and  a description in writing of the consumer’s rights under the FCRA to the consumer.  See 15 U.S.C.  §§ 1681b(b)(3).   9.  UBS’s practices not only violate the FCRA as a matter of law, they exact serious  consequences on consumer job applicants and interstate commerce.  Consumers are prejudiced in  their ability to adequately determine whether the information is being properly reported.  Pursuant  to UBS’s practice, by the time the consumer is made aware of the consumer report, it is too late to  correct the contents of the report because it has already formed the basis of UBS’s decision whether  to hire the applicant.  B.  The Representative Plaintiff’s Experience   A.  Defendant’s Practices As An Employer  