35.  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 employers.   36.  In order to provide these consumer reports, Sterling investigates and reviews  public record databases and assembles and/or maintains consumer files which contain public  record information concerning, among other things, the alleged criminal record history of  individuals.  Sterling then sells this information to employers, including Hertz.   37.  Upon information and belief, as part of the services Sterling offers to its employer  customers, Sterling agrees to send FCRA- required “pre-adverse action” notices to consumers on  behalf of its employer-customers.  Upon information and belief, Hertz has contracted with  Sterling to provide this service.  Plaintiff Lee’s Experience   38.  In June 2012, while in Richmond, California, visiting relatives, Mr. Lee was  arrested.    39.  Mr. Lee was subsequently charged with felony possession of a controlled  substance for sale with a gang enhancement (the “June 2012 charges”).   40.  While the June 2012 charges were pending, in May 2014, Hertz personnel  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page6 of 23 - 7 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  recruited Mr. Lee to interview for a counter sales representative position with Hertz at its Dollar/  Thrifty-branded car rental location at San Francisco International Airport.   41.  At the time Hertz recruited him for a position with the company, Mr. Lee worked  for a competitor car rental company in a similar position.   42.  Mr. Lee interviewed for the position with Hertz sometime in the first half of May  2014.  At the close of the interview, Mr. Lee was given an offer of employment, pending the  processing of his application materials.   43.  To begin this process, a Hertz representative instructed Mr. Lee to complete an  online application by following a link sent to him via email.     44.  Mr. Lee completed the online application as instructed.   45.  On May 15, 2014, Mr. Lee received an email from Kimberly Kowallis (“Ms.  Kowallis”), a field recruiter for Hertz, confirming his conditional offer of employment.   46.  On May 27, 2014, after Mr. Lee had passed Hertz’s mandatory drug screening, he  received an email from Ms. Kowallis with a link to an addendum to the Hertz application  specific to California and Hawaii.  The email requested that Mr. Lee complete the online  application addendum.     47.  Mr. Lee completed the online application addendum as instructed.     48.  Also on May 27, 2014, Mr. Lee received an email from Ms. Kowallis with the  subject line “Hertz Orientation Package.”  This email provided information about Mr. Lee’s  onboarding with Hertz.   49.  Ms. Kowallis subsequently scheduled Mr. Lee to begin working for Hertz on June  9, 2014.  After receiving confirmation of his start date with Hertz, Mr. Lee provided a notice of  resignation, effective June 9, 2014, to his then-current employer.    50.  At some point during the processing of Mr. Lee’s application, Hertz obtained one  or more consumer reports from Sterling containing information about Mr. Lee’s background, one  or more of which included information regarding the June 2012 criminal charges pending against  Mr. Lee.  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page7 of 23 - 8 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28   51.  At no point during the processing of his employment application did Hertz  provide Mr. Lee with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in the form of a written document that  consisted solely of the disclosure, that it may obtain a consumer report for employment purposes,  as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).   52.  Likewise, at no point during the processing of Mr. Lee’s employment application  did Hertz obtain Mr. Lee’s authorization in the form of a written document for the procurement  of a consumer report, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii).   53.  On June 3, 2014, Mr. Lee received a call from Ms. Kowallis informing him that  Hertz would not hire him because of the criminal history information contained in his  background check.  Ms. Kowallis told Mr. Lee that she could not do anything about his rejection  because the decision was based on “Hertz policy.”     54.  Mr. Lee asked Ms. Kowallis for a copy of the background check information that  Hertz had obtained and was instructed to contact Sterling.   55.  Later that same day, Mr. Lee received an email from Ms. Kowallis confirming  that Hertz had, indeed, rescinded his job offer because he did not meet the company’s  “background qualifications.”    56.  As a result of the criminal history information contained in the consumer report it  procured from Sterling, Hertz stopped the onboarding process, and did not move forward with  the job that it had offered Mr. Lee.   57.  After Ms. Kowallis informed Mr. Lee that he would not be hired because of  criminal history information contained in his background check on June 3, 2014, Mr. Lee  contacted Sterling by phone and requested a copy of the consumer report that Sterling provided  to Hertz in connection with Mr. Lee’s application for employment.   58.  In response to Mr. Lee’s request, sometime on or after June 3, 2014, Sterling sent  Mr. Lee by regular mail a copy of a consumer report prepared by Sterling, which included  information about the June 2012 charges (the “June 3rd package”).  Mr. Lee did not receive a  copy the June 3rd package until sometime after June 3, 2014.  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page8 of 23 - 9 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28   59.  Sometime on or after June 4, 2014, Sterling sent to Mr. Lee by regular mail an  undated letter that was inaccurately entitled “Pre-Adverse Action Notice,” and which bore Hertz  corporate logo (the “June 4th Letter'”).  Enclosed with the June 4th letter was a copy of a  consumer report prepared by Sterling dated June 4, 2014, which contained information about the  June 2012 charges.   60.  Mr. Lee did not receive the June 4th Letter, which upon information and belief,  was sent by Sterling pursuant to its contract with Hertz, until sometime after June 4, 2014.   61.  The June 4th Letter informed Mr. Lee that, based on a “Criminal Report”  provided by Sterling, Hertz was considering revoking Mr. Lee’s conditional offer of  employment, subject to Mr. Lee successfully challenging the accuracy of the criminal report  information.   62.  At the time that Sterling mailed Mr. Lee the June 3rd package and the June 4th  letter (as well as at the time Mr. Lee received them), however, Sterling had already provided  Hertz with a copy of Mr. Lee’s consumer report containing information about the June 2012  criminal charges, and Hertz had already revoked Mr. Lee’s conditional offer of employment  based upon information contained in that consumer report.  Factual Allegations Common to All Class Members   63.  Employers commonly use criminal background screening reports to determine  employment eligibility.  A significant percentage of these reports, however, contain incomplete,  inaccurate, misleading, or improper records that can erroneously disqualify a job applicant or  employee.  Recognizing this danger, Congress provided strict reporting and disclosure  requirements in the FCRA to ensure that prospective employees have the opportunity to review  reports summarizing their background information and to contest any inaccuracies and illegal  disclosures and/or provide additional information before these reports influence employment  decisions.     64.  The FCRA requires that “before taking any adverse action based in whole or in  part on [a consumer report],” the employer taking the adverse action must provide “the consumer  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page9 of 23 - 10 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  to whom the report relates” with:  (i) a copy of the report; and  (ii) a description in writing of the rights of the consumer under this subchapter, as  prescribed by the [Consumer Financial Protection] Bureau under section  1681g(c)(3).  15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) and (ii).    65.  The FCRA defines adverse action as either “a denial of employment or any other  decision for employment purposes that adversely affects any current or prospective employee,”  or “any action taken or determination that is . . . adverse to the interests of the consumer.”  15  U.S.C. §§ 1681a(k)(l)(B).     66.  A consumer reporting agency’s delivery of a consumer report containing  information likely to prove detrimental to the consumer’s ability to secure employment is an  “adverse action” in itself under this section.  See Mattiaccio v. DHA Grp., Inc., No. 12 Civ. 1249,  2014 WL 717780, at *6 (D.D.C. Feb. 26, 2014) (citing Adams v. Nat’l Eng’g Serv. Corp., 620 F.  Supp. 2d 319, 332 (D. Conn. 2009) (summary judgment denied on grounds that a reasonable jury  could deem CRA’s delivery of negative consumer report a FCRA “adverse action”)).    67.  Hertz and Sterling have routinely and systematically failed to provide Plaintiff  and other job applicants with a copy of their consumer reports prior to taking adverse actions  against them.   68.  Hertz and Sterling further have routinely and systematically failed to provide  Plaintiff and other job applicants with a summary of their rights under the FCRA prior to taking  adverse actions against them.   69.  The FCRA also requires that employers “may not procure a consumer report or  cause a consumer report to be procured, for employment purposes with respect to any  consumer,” 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  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page10 of 23 - 11 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  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 by that person.  15 U.S.C. § 1681b(B)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).     70.  Hertz routinely and systematically violates these provisions by failing to (1)  provide “clear and conspicuous” disclosures in writing, in a document that consists solely of the  disclosures, that a consumer report may be obtained and (2) obtain applicants’ authorization in  writing to procure a consumer reports for employment purposes.     71.  Finally, the FCRA mandates that any consumer reporting agency that “furnishes a  consumer report for employment purposes” and, in so doing, “compiles and reports items of  information on consumers which are matters of public record and are likely to have an adverse  effect upon the consumer’s ability to obtain employment” shall:  1) at the time such public record information is reported to the user of such  consumer report, notify the consumer of the fact that public record  information is being reported by the consumer reporting agency, together with  the name and address of the person to whom such information is being  reported; or  2) maintain strict procedures designed to [ensure] that whenever public record  information which is likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer’s ability  to obtain employment is reported it is complete and up to date.  15 U.S.C. § 1681k(a)(1) and (2).    72.  Sterling routinely and systematically fails to provide consumers with timely  notice of its reporting of public-record information likely to have an adverse effect on the  consumer’s ability to obtain employment.  Sterling also routinely and systematically fails to  maintain strict procedures to ensure that the public record information that it reports is complete  and current.  See Poore v. Sterling Testing Sys., 410 F. Supp. 2d 557, 572 (E.D. Ky. 2006)  (expressing concern over the absence of “any information regarding any procedures that Sterling  may employ to ensure” the accuracy of information received from various subsidiaries and  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page11 of 23 - 12 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  affiliates); Jones v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc., No. 14-cv-3076 (S.D.N.Y.).   73.   In failing to fulfill either of these obligations, Sterling systematically violates 15  U.S.C. § 1681k(a).    74.  Defendants have acted willfully in violating the requirements of the FCRA.  Defendants knew or should have known about their obligations under the FCRA.  These  obligations are well-established by the plain language of the FCRA and in the promulgations and  opinion letters of the Federal Trade Commission.   75.   Despite Defendants’ awareness of their legal obligations, Defendants have acted  consciously in breaching their known duties and depriving Plaintiff and other job applicants of  their rights under the FCRA.    76.  At a minimum, Defendants’ conduct has been reckless in failing to make an  appropriate inquiry to ascertain its obligations under the FCRA.  77.  Mr. Lee brings this Class Action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23 on behalf of himself and five classes of persons.   78.  Plaintiff asserts the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action against  Hertz and Sterling on behalf of the “FCRA Consumer Report Copy Class” and “FCRA Summary  of Rights Class” defined as follows:  FCRA Consumer Report Copy Class: All applicants for employment with  Hertz in the United States within five years of the filing of this complaint through  the date of final judgment who were subject to an adverse action based in whole  or in part on information contained in a consumer report without receiving a copy  of the consumer report at least five business days prior to the adverse action, as  required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i).  FCRA Summary of Rights Class: All applicants for employment with Hertz in  the United States within five years of the filing of this complaint through the date  of final judgment who were subject to an adverse action based in whole or in part  on information contained in a consumer report without receiving a written  description of their rights under the FCRA at least five business days prior to the  adverse action, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii).  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page12 of 23 - 13 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28   79.  Plaintiff asserts the Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action against Hertz on behalf of  the “FCRA Disclosure Class” and the “FCRA Authorization Class” defined as follows:  FCRA Disclosure Class: All applicants for employment with Hertz in the United  States within five years of the filing of this complaint through the date of final  judgment about whom Hertz procured a consumer report without providing a  clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing, in a document that consisted solely of  the disclosure, prior to procuring the consumer report, as required by 15 U.S.C. §  1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).  FCRA Authorization Class: All applicants for employment with Hertz in the  United States within five years of the filing of this complaint through the date of  final judgment about whom Hertz procured a consumer report without obtaining  the applicants’ authorization in writing prior to procuring the consumer report, as  required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii).   80.  Plaintiff asserts the Seventh Cause of Action against Sterling on behalf of the  “Adverse Public-Record Information Class” defined as follows:  Adverse Public-Record Information Class: All applicants for employment with  Hertz in the United States, except for in New York State, within five years of the  filing of this complaint through the date of final judgment about whom Sterling  delivered a consumer report to Hertz containing public-record information likely  to adversely affect the applicant’s ability to obtain employment without either  providing advance notice to the affected applicant or maintaining strict procedures  to ensure the information reported was complete and up to date, as required by 15  U.S.C. § 1681k(a).    81.  The members of the FCRA Consumer Report Copy Class, FCRA Summary of  Rights Class, the FCRA Disclosure Class, the FCA Authorization Class, and the Adverse Public- Record Information Class are collectively referred to as “Class Members.”   82.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definition of above-defined classes based  on discovery or legal developments.   83.  The Class Members identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all members  is impracticable.  Hertz employs over 30,000 workers worldwide, with the vast majority located  within the United States.  Although Plaintiff does not know the precise number of job applicants  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page13 of 23 - 14 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  harmed by Defendants’ violations of FCRA, the number is far greater than feasibly could be  addressed through joinder.  The precise number is also uniquely within Defendants’ possession.   84.  There are questions of law and fact common to Class Members, and these  questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.  Common  questions include, among others:    a. whether Defendants violated FCRA by taking adverse action, based  wholly or in part on information contained a consumer report, against  Plaintiff and other members of the FCRA Consumer Report Copy  Class without first providing them with a copy of the consumer report  and at least five business days to respond, as required by 15 U.S.C. §  1681b(b)(3)(A)(i);  b. whether Defendants violated FCRA by taking adverse action, based  wholly or in part on information contained in a consumer report,  against Plaintiff and other members of the FCRA Summary of Rights  Class without first providing them with a written summary of their  rights under FCRA and at least five business days to respond, as  required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii);  c. whether Hertz violated FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiff and the  FCRA Disclosure Class with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in  writing, in a document that consisted solely of the disclosure, prior to  procuring their consumer reports for employment purposes, as  required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i);  d. whether Hertz violated FCRA by failing to obtain from Plaintiff and  the FCRA Authorization Class authorization in writing prior to  procuring their consumer reports for employment purposes, as  required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii);  e. whether Sterling violated FCRA by failing either to inform Plaintiff of  the Adverse Public-Record Information Class of its intent to deliver  public-record information likely to adversely affect their ability to  obtain employment or to maintain strict procedures sufficient to ensure  that the adverse public-record information was complete and up to  date;  f. whether Defendants were willful in their noncompliance with the  requirements of FCRA;  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page14 of 23 - 15 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  g. whether Defendants were negligent in their noncompliance with the  requirements of FCRA; and  h. whether equitable remedies, injunctive relief, statutory damages,  compensatory damages, and punitive damages for Class Members are  warranted.    85.  Mr. Lee is a member of the classes he seeks to represent.  Defendants failed to  provide Mr. Lee with a copy of the consumer report or a notice of his rights under FCRA prior to  taking adverse action against him, as required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A) (i) and (ii).  Additionally, Hertz failed to provide Mr. Lee with a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing,  in a document consisting solely of the disclosure, or obtain from Mr. Lee authorization in writing  to procure a consumer report for employment purposes prior to procuring such a report, as  required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) and (ii).  Finally, Sterling failed to either inform Mr.  Lee of its reporting to Hertz of public record information likely to adversely affect his ability to  secure employment, or to maintain strict procedures sufficient to ensure that the information was  complete and up to date, prior to delivering the information to Hertz, as required under 15 U.S.C.  § 1681k(a).     86.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the classes he seeks to represent.   Upon information and belief, it is Defendants’ standard practice to take adverse action against  applicants without first providing affected individuals with a copy of their consumer reports and  a written summary of their rights under FCRA.  Additionally, upon information and belief, it is  Hertz’s standard practice to procure consumer reports without first providing a clear and  conspicuous disclosure in writing to applicants, in a document that consists solely of the  disclosure, or obtaining their written authorization.  Finally, upon information and belief, it is  Sterling’s standard practice to deliver to Hertz public-record information likely to prove  detrimental to the ability of applicants to obtain employment without first (a) notifying the  applicants of the fact that the public record information is being reported and the name and  address of the recipient; or (b) maintaining strict procedures to ensure the information is  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page15 of 23 - 16 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  complete and up to date.  Mr. Lee is entitled to relief under the same causes of action as other  Class Members.    87.  Mr. Lee will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class  Members.  Mr. Lee has retained counsel who are competent and experienced in complex class  actions, employment litigation, and the intersection thereof.  There is no conflict between Mr.  Lee and the Class Members.    88.  Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil  Procedure 23(b)(2) because the Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally  applicable to the Class Members, making declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate with  respect to Mr. Lee and the Class Members as a whole.   The Class Members are entitled to  injunctive relief to end Defendants’ common, uniform, unfair discriminatory—and illegal— policies and practices.   89.   Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure  23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting  only individual Class Members, and because a class action is superior to other available methods  for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation.  Class Members have been damaged and  are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants’ uniform policies and practices.  Because  Defendants have maintained a common policy of failing to properly inform Class Members of  their rights under FCRA, many Class Members are likely unaware that their rights have been  violated.    90.  The amount of each Class Member’s individual claim is also small compared to  the expense and burden of individual prosecution of this litigation.  The FCRA has statutorily  specified damages, which Class Members will prove at trial are warranted, that will render  calculation of damages for Class Members highly straightforward.  The propriety and amount of  punitive damages are based on Defendants’ conduct, making these issues common to Class  Members.   Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page16 of 23 - 17 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  91.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.    92.  Hertz procured consumer reports containing information regarding Plaintiff and  the FCRA Consumer Report Copy Class Members from a consumer reporting agency.    93.  Hertz took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff and the FCRA Consumer  Report Copy Class Members based in whole or in part on the information contained within those  consumer reports.    94.  Prior to taking these adverse employment actions, Hertz failed to provide Plaintiff  and each FCRA Consumer Report Copy Class Member with a copy of his or her consumer report  and a reasonable amount of time to respond.   95.  As a result of Hertz’s actions, Plaintiff and the FCRA Consumer Report Copy  Class Members have been deprived of their consumer rights and prevented from timely and  effectively contesting the adverse action.   96.  Hertz’s conduct was willful, making it liable for actual or statutory damages,  punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be determined by the Court  pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.   97.  Alternatively, Hertz’s actions were negligent, rendering it liable for actual  damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.  98.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.    99.  Hertz procured consumer reports containing information regarding Plaintiff and  the FCRA Summary of Rights Class Members from a consumer reporting agency.   Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page17 of 23 - 18 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  100.  Hertz took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff and the FCRA Summary  of Rights Class Members based in whole or in part on the information contained within those  consumer reports.   101.  Prior to taking these adverse employment actions, Hertz failed to provide Plaintiff  and each FCRA Summary of Rights Class Member with a summary of his or her rights under  FCRA and a reasonable amount of time to respond.  102.  As a result of Hertz’s actions, Plaintiff and the FCRA Summary of Rights Class  Members have been deprived of their consumer rights and prevented from timely and effectively  contesting the adverse action.  103.  Hertz’s conduct was willful, making it liable for actual or statutory damages,  punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be determined by the Court  pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.  104.  Alternatively, Hertz’s actions were negligent, rendering it liable for actual  damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.  Background Information    Hertz’s Failure to Provide Consumer Report Copy Prior to Taking Adverse Action  (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i), Brought by Plaintiff on Behalf of   Himself and the FCRA Consumer Report Copy Class)   Hertz’s Failure to Provide Summary of Rights Prior to Taking Adverse Action  (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii), Brought by Plaintiff on Behalf of   Himself and the FCRA Summary of Rights Class)   Sterling’s Failure to Provide Consumer Report Copy Prior to Taking Adverse Action  (15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i), Brought by Plaintiff on Behalf of   Himself and the FCRA Consumer Report Copy Class)  105.  Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.   106.  Sterling has compiled and delivered to Hertz consumer reports containing  information regarding Plaintiff and the FCRA Consumer Report Copy Class Members that were  likely to prove harmful to the ability of Plaintiff and the FCRA Consumer Report Copy Class  Members to obtain employment.   107.  Each instance of delivery of this information constituted an adverse action as  defined by FCRA and prevailing case law.   108.  Prior to taking these adverse employment actions, Sterling failed to provide  Plaintiff and each FCRA Consumer Report Copy Class Member with a copy of his or her  consumer report.  Case4:15-cv-02545-JSW   Document1   Filed06/09/15   Page18 of 23 - 19 -   Complaint for Violations of FCRA  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  109.  As a result of Sterling’s actions, Plaintiff and the FCRA Consumer Report Copy  Class Members have been deprived of their consumer rights and prevented from timely and  effectively contesting the adverse action.  110.  Sterling’s conduct was willful, making it liable for actual or statutory damages,  punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, in an amount to be determined by the Court  pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.  111.  Alternatively, Sterling’s actions were negligent, rendering it liable for actual  damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681o. 