16.  GIS furnished consumer reports concerning Plaintiff to Genesis as part of its  hiring process. During the FCRA statute-of-limitations period, GIS was a “consumer reporting  agency” as defined by the FCRA.   17.  During the FCRA statute-of-limitations period, GIS was regularly engaged in the  business of assembling, evaluating, and disbursing public-record information concerning  consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports, as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d), to  third parties.   18.  At all times relevant hereto, Genesis—to whom GIS sold consumer reports about  class members for employment purposes—was a “user” of those consumer reports, as governed  by the FCRA.  A.  Plaintiff’s Acceptance of Offer of Employment With Genesis   20.  The July 10, 2014 job offer contained, among other things, a non-compete clause  by which Plaintiff agreed not to accept another position.  As such, upon accepting the position  with Genesis, Plaintiff was precluded from seeking alternative employment.    21.  As part of its application procedure, Genesis purchased from GIS a consumer  report on Plaintiff on or about July 9, 2014.  After viewing the report, Genesis communicated to  Plaintiff, by phone on July 25, 2014, that her application had been “flagged” because of a felony  in her criminal history. The hiring manager who called Plaintiff indicated that the felony posed a  “problem” for her employment.   22.  Explaining that the felony entry was incorrect, Plaintiff offered to write a letter to  the hiring manager setting out her correct criminal history.    23.  On July 26, 2014, Plaintiff received a letter from GIS stating that it had provided  Plaintiff’s background report to “Genesis Healthcare CareerStaff Unlimited,” and included as  enclosures a copy of Plaintiff’s background report and a summary of her FCRA rights.  The  report stated that Plaintiff’s “Hire Date” was July 8, 2014.   24.  Plaintiff emailed her explanation letter to the hiring manager on July 27, 2014  which the manager confirmed receiving in a July 28, 2014 email to Plaintiff. The hiring manager  stated that she would forward Plaintiff’s letter to “Corporate counsel.”   26.  Alternatively, assuming that the July 26 letter from GIS was actually a pre- adverse action notice under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b) sent on behalf of Genesis, Plaintiff never  received the notice from GIS required under 15 U.S.C. § 1681k(a)(1) at the time a report  containing adverse information is provided to the user, Genesis.   27.  On August 1, 2014, three days after Genesis retracted its offer of employment,  Plaintiff received a second letter from GIS stating that Genesis would not employ her.  However,  on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the hire-versus-fire adverse action actually  occurred almost immediately upon the completion of Plaintiff’s report by GIS, as GIS itself was  tasked with the “adjudication” of whether or not to disqualify an applicant based on the content  of the report using predefined hiring criteria from Genesis. Such process is automated and  involves limited, if any, human discretion, and for most similarly situated consumers, no  discretion by Genesis.   28.  Thus, the date of the “adverse action” against Plaintiff was the date that GIS first  created and instantly “adjudicated” her application. GIS stated on Plaintiff’s report that she  “Does Not Meet Hiring Criteria,” a conclusion that Genesis accepts and follows without any  independent investigation or exercise of discretion.  B.  Plaintiff’s Criminal History And GIS’s Failure To Correct It   30.  In November of 1976, a grand jury in Harris County, Texas, indicted Plaintiff for  the felony of intentionally and knowingly causing bodily injury to a child of less than 15 years of  age. The child’s injury arose when Plaintiff’s former husband disciplined the couple’s son with a  belt. As the child’s mother, Plaintiff was deemed equally responsible for the incident although  she took no part in it.    31.  After the indictment, the State moved to reduce the charge to misdemeanor  assault, to which Plaintiff pleaded guilty on May 20, 1977. Plaintiff received no punishment  other than a $25 fine, and the court’s judgment plainly states—twice—that Plaintiff pleaded  guilty to “the offense of assault, a class A misdemeanor.”  Nowhere does the judgment state that  Plaintiff pleaded guilty to a felony or any crime involving injury to a child.   32.  In its report furnished to Genesis, GIS reported (a) a misdemeanor conviction for  assault, and (b) a felony conviction for “Assault – Injury to a Child,” both with a disposition date  of May 20, 1977. This second entry is inaccurate, as Plaintiff’s sole conviction was for  misdemeanor assault, which is not a felony and is not injury to a child.    34.  On August 21, 2014, GIS stated in a letter to Plaintiff that its investigation of her  dispute was complete, and enclosed an updated copy of her background report with that letter.  GIS’s reinvestigation of Plaintiff’s dispute, however, failed to result in an accurate report.   35.  Rather than doing the correct thing, removing the second entry of assault  altogether, GIS removed the first—and accurate—entry of misdemeanor assault, and reduced the  level of the second—and incorrect—entry of assault from a felony to a misdemeanor. GIS also,  again incorrectly, categorized this misdemeanor as “Assault – Injury to a Child.” This  categorization is simply inaccurate, as Plaintiff plainly explained on her dispute form and can be  readily ascertained from the judgment document itself.    36.  An online search of Harris County Criminal Records indicates that the charge on  which Plaintiff was originally indicted was dismissed, while the misdemeanor assault charge is  “completed.”  C.  Genesis’ Practices and Policies   37.  Genesis has created and implemented national, uniform hiring and staffing  policies, procedures, and practices under which it operates. Those policies, procedures, and  practices cover the use of “background checks” or “consumer reports” to screen potential  employees.    39.  As a matter of practice, Genesis regularly fails to provide copies of the FTC or  CFPB notice of rights to job applicants against whom it takes an adverse action based in whole  or part on consumer reports, before taking that adverse action.   40.  As a matter of course, Genesis uses the same business process for obtaining and  using consumer reports, and for the “adjudication” of employment applications as it did with  Plaintiff and members of the Class.   41.  As a result of these FCRA violations, Genesis is liable to Plaintiff, and to each  Class member, for statutory damages from $100 to $1,000 pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §  1681n(a)(1)(A), plus punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2), and attorneys’ fees  and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o.   42.  As a result of its own, independent FCRA violations, GIS is liable to Plaintiff for  her actual damages resulting from the inaccuracies contained in her GIS report, as well as  attorneys’ fees and costs. 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.    43.  Defendants’ conduct and omissions were willful.  Because the FCRA was enacted  in 1970, Defendants have had years to become compliant but have failed to do so.   44.  Genesis, a nationwide employer, was aware of obligations under the FCRA as  they relate to employment because it hired GIS not only to perform its background checks but  also to (attempt to) provide Genesis’ adverse-action notices to job applicants. Genesis therefore  knew of the requirements imposed upon it by the FCRA, and failed to craft a system that would  ensure compliance with those requirements.  V.  46.  Specifically excluded from this Class are: (a) all federal court judges who preside  over this case and their spouses; (b) all persons who elect to exclude themselves from the Class;  (c) all persons who have previously executed and delivered to Genesis releases of all their claims  for all of their Class claims; and (d) Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and  representatives and their family members.   47.  Numerosity. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is  impracticable. At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact size of the Class. Based on  information and belief, the Class is comprised of at least thousands of members who are  geographically dispersed throughout the country so as to render joinder of all Class members  impracticable.  The names and addresses of the Class members are identifiable through  documents maintained by the Defendants, and the Class members may be notified of the  pendency of this action by published and/or mailed notice.   49.  Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the other Class members’ claims. As  described above, Defendant Genesis uses common practices and automated systems in  committing the conduct that Plaintiff alleges damaged her and the Class. Plaintiff seeks only  statutory and punitive damages for her classwide claims and, in addition, Plaintiff is entitled to  relief under the same causes of action as the other members of the Class.  Genesis uniformly  breached the FCRA by engaging in the conduct described above, and these violations had the  same effect on each member of the Class.     50.  Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class.  Plaintiff’s interests coincide with, and are not antagonistic to, other Class members’ interests.  Additionally, Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced and competent in complex, commercial,  multi-party, consumer, and class-action litigation. Plaintiff’s Counsel have prosecuted complex  FCRA class actions across the country.   52.  Furthermore, individualized litigation presents a potential for inconsistent or  contradictory judgments and increases the delay and expense to all parties and to the court  system presented by the complex legal and factual issues raised by Genesis’ conduct. By  contrast, the class action device will result in substantial benefits to the litigants and the Court by  allowing the Court to resolve numerous individual claims based upon a single set of proof in just  one case.  VI. 