19.  Acadian conducts background checks, which include investigations of criminal  history, of its job applicants as part of its standard screening and hiring process.   20.  In addition, Acadian periodically conducts such background checks on existing  employees during the course of their employment.   21.  Acadian does not perform these background checks in-house. Rather, Acadian  relies on outside consumer reporting firms to obtain this information and report it to Acadian.  These reports constitute “consumer reports” for purposes of the FCRA, and each outside  consumer reporting firm constitutes a “consumer reporting agency” under the FCRA.   22.  One of the outside consumer reporting firms Acadian utilizes is Kroll Background  America, Inc., a subsidiary of HireRight, Inc. (“Kroll”).   23.  Kroll is a “consumer reporting agency” under the FCRA.  Acadian’s violations of the FCRA relating to the Background Check Class.   24.  Acadian procured consumer report information in violation of the FCRA.   26.  Acadian has repeatedly failed to comply with these disclosure and authorization  requirements of the FCRA.   27.  Acadian has an online application process that guides a job applicant’s search for  specific job openings available at Acadian.3   28.  The set of sequential steps a candidate must follow in order to apply online for a  job with Acadian is uniform for all job openings available in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi,  and these steps have not changed during the relevant 5-year statute of limitations period.   29.  On page 24 of a 30-page online employment application, Acadian 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 Acadian’s hiring decision.     31.  Acadian does not have a stand-alone FCRA disclosure or authorization form, and  the paragraphs above do not comply with the FCRA’s specific disclosure and authorization  requirements.   32.  Acadian’s practice violates the plain language of the statute, and flies in the face  of unambiguous case law and regulatory guidance from the FTC. See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Video  Only, Inc., No. 06-1362, 2008 WL 2433841, at *11 (D.Or. June 11, 2008) (“I grant summary  judgment of liability that Video Only violated . . . 15 § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(I). This section provides  that at any time before the report is procured, a disclosure is made in a document that consists  solely of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes. Video  Only disclosed this possibility as part of its job application, which is not a document consisting  solely of the disclosure.”); see also, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) guidance (“The  disclosure may not be part of an employment application . . . . A disclosure that is combined with  many items in an employment application -- no matter how ‘prominently’ it appears -- is not ‘in  a document that consists solely of the disclosure’ as required by [1681b(b)(2)(A)].”); 5 see also,  FTC Staff Report at p. 51 (“The disclosure cannot be part of a printed employment  application.”).6   34.  Moreover, Acadian’s above-referenced authorization in paragraph 30 of this  Complaint does not consist solely of a disclosure and authorization to obtain consumer report  information. In addition, the paragraph contains the following release language: “I release from  all liability anyone supplying such information, and I also release the employer from all liability  that might result from making an investigation.” 7   35.  The insertion of such a release of liability by Acadian also is contrary to the plain  language of the statute and longstanding regulatory guidance. The FTC warns that “the form  should not include any extraneous information.”8  In fact, the FTC further warns specifically that  “[t]he inclusion of such a waiver [of liability] in a disclosure form will violate Section  604(b)(2)(A) of the FCRA [15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b(b)(2)(A)], which requires that a disclosure  consist ‘solely’ of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment  purposes.” Id.   36.  By including such an extraneous release, Acadian willfully disregarded this  regulatory guidance, and willfully violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b(b)(2)(A) by procuring consumer  report information on employees without complying with the disclosure and authorization  requirements of the statute.  Acadian’s violations of the FCRA relating to the Adverse Action Class.   38.  Acadian typically does not supply job applicants or employees a copy of their  consumer reports prior to taking such adverse action against them.   39.  This practice violates one of the most fundamental protections afforded to  prospective and current employees under the FCRA, and also runs counter to longstanding  regulatory guidance. See Exhibit 6 (“[15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)] requires that all employers  who use consumer reports provide a copy of the report to the affected consumer before any  adverse action is taken. Employers must comply with this provision even where the information  contained in the report (such as a criminal record) would automatically disqualify the individual  from employment or lead to an adverse employment action. Indeed, this is precisely the situation  where it is important that the consumer be informed of the negative information …”).9   40.  By failing to supply Plaintiff and Putative Class members a copy of their  respective consumer report prior to taking adverse employment action against them based on  such reports, Acadian willfully disregarded this regulatory guidance and the plain language of  the statute in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681b(b)(2)(A).  V.  41.  Mr. Landrum applied for work with Acadian on July 10, 2013, and in this regard,  Mr. Landrum completed Acadian’s online employment application.10   42.  Following completion of his employment application, Mr. Landrum periodically  inquired about Acadian’s employment decision.11   44.  On September 25, 2013, as scheduled, Mr. Landrum interviewed with Ms.  Barbara Hughes, an employee of Acadian.   45.  On September 26, 2013, Ms. Hughes ordered a criminal background report from  Kroll pertaining to Mr. Landrum.13   46.  On October 25, 2013, Acadian informed Mr. Landrum that the company had  decided not to hire him.14   47.  On November 18, 2013, Mr. Landrum submitted an email to Ms. Hughes  inquiring about the details of Acadian’s decision not to hire him.15  Mr. Landrum received no  response from Ms. Hughes or from any other employee of Acadian.   48.  Importantly, at no time subsequent to Mr. Landrum’s July 10, 2013, application  for employment did Acadian supply Mr. Landrum a copy of his consumer background report.   49.  As a result, Mr. Landrum was deprived of any opportunity to review the  information in the report and discuss it with Acadian before the company took adverse action  against him on October 25, 2013. 16    51.  Mr. Landrum 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  Acadian who received notice on or after May 26, 2009 (or who did not receive  any notice) that Acadian was taking adverse employment action against them  based, in whole or in part, on information contained in a consumer report, and  who were not given a copy of the consumer report in advance.   52.  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 Acadian who were the subject of a consumer report procured by Acadian (or  that Acadian caused to be procured) on or after May 26, 2009.   53.  Numerosity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a): The Putative Classes are so numerous  that joinder of all class members is impracticable. Acadian 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 one thousand employees and prospective employees satisfy the definition of the Putative  Classes. Information concerning the exact size of the Putative Classes is within the exclusive  possession of Acadian.   55.  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.   57.  This case is maintainable as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) because  prosecution of actions by or against individual members of the Putative Classes would result in  inconsistent or varying adjudications and create the risk of incompatible standards of conduct for  Defendant. Further, adjudication of each individual Class member’s claim as separate action  would potentially be dispositive of the interest of other individuals not a party to such action,  impeding their ability to protect their interests.   59.  Class certification is also appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) because  questions of law and fact common to the Putative Classes predominate over any questions  affecting only individual members of the Putative Classes, and because a class action is superior  to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. Defendant’s  conduct described in this Complaint stems from common and uniform policies and practices,  resulting in common (and multiple) violations of the FCRA.   60.  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.   61.  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.   62.  Mr. Landrum intends to send notice to all members of the Putative Classes to the  extent required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. The names and addresses of the Putative Class members  are available from Defendant’s records.  Acadian conducts employment background checks (including criminal background checks)  during its hiring process.  