11.  Plaintiff Tiffanie Branch applied for a position as Liability Claims Representative  at the Fredericksburg office of Defendant GEICO during the late summer of 2016.  On August  26, 2016, she accepted GEICO’s offer to join the company as a Liability Claims Representative  at an initial salary of $22.33 an hour.   12.  The job offer was contingent on a background check.    13.  Prior to the job offer, in the course of the application process Plaintiff had  disclosed to GEICO that she had never been convicted of a felony, but that she had a  misdemeanor conviction in her past.     14.  GEICO ordered a background check on Plaintiff from General Information  Services (GIS) on September 2, 2016.   16.  If the report is marked with a green flag, the applicant is generally eligible to be  placed for employment immediately.   17.  If the report is marked with a yellow or red flag, that indicates that GIS has  graded the applicant with a derogatory background report.   18.  GIS completed Plaintiff’s background report and sent it electronically to GEICO  on September 21, 2016.     19.  The GIS report was inaccurate.  GIS reported to GEICO that Plaintiff had been  convicted of a felony, which was not true.   20.  GIS graded Plaintiff’s report as a “Fail” with a red flag.   21.  After viewing the report, a GEICO representative named Latoria Parker contacted  Plaintiff by telephone on September 21, 2016 to tell her that the job offer was rescinded due to  the existence of a felony conviction from the City of Richmond that appeared on the background  report.   22.  Neither Ms. Parker nor anyone else at GEICO provided Plaintiff with a copy of  the background report prior to rescinding her job offer.   24.  Plaintiff was deeply shocked and upset at the revocation of the job offer.  Because  she had not seen a copy of the background report she did her best to follow up on the telephone  conversation by sending Ms. Parker an email later that day providing the details why the GIS  report of a felony conviction was a serious mistake.  She explained that she had originally been  charged with a felony but the charge had been reduced and she pled guilty to a misdemeanor.   25.  Plaintiff further explained that the Virginia General District Court Online Case  Information System, which can be easily accessed by computer, showed that the charge from the  City of Richmond had been reduced to a misdemeanor in the final case disposition.  Plaintiff  included that documentation with her email to Ms. Parker.    26.  Nevertheless, GEICO did not reinstate the job offer to Plaintiff.    27.  Subsequently, Plaintiff received a letter dated September 22, 2016 from GIS  stating that GEICO “has or will be completing their review of your application within the next  few days, and may take action based on the enclosed report.”   28.  However, in reality, GEICO had already taken adverse action against Plaintiff on  September 21, 2016, when its representative telephoned Plaintiff to revoke the job offer, based  on the GIS criminal background report that GEICO had received that same day.   29.  In fact, the GIS report states that the grading “Decision Time” occurred on “9/21/  2016 [at] 12:39:07 PM.”   31.  GEICO has created and implemented national, uniform hiring and staffing  policies, procedures, and practices under which it and its subsidiaries operate. Those policies,  procedures, and practices cover the use of “background checks” or “consumer reports” to screen  potential employees.    32.  GEICO routinely uses consumer reports to screen prospective employees, with  GIS grading applicants based on criteria GEICO supplies to GIS.  As a matter of practice,  GEICO regularly fails to provide copies of consumer reports to job applicants against whom it  takes an adverse action based in whole or part on consumer reports, before taking that adverse  action.   33.  As a matter of practice, GEICO 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 a consumer report, before taking that adverse action.   34.  As a matter of course, GEICO 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 described below.  In authorizing GIS to mail pre- and final  adverse action letters automatically, GEICO deprives consumers of any reasonable time period  by which to dispute or discuss any inaccurate or derogatory information in their background  reports.    36.  Defendant’s conduct and omissions were willful.  Because the FCRA was enacted  in 1970, Defendant has had years to become compliant but has failed to do so.     37.  GEICO, 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 GEICO’s adverse-action notices to job applicants.  GEICO 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.  38.  Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681b, Plaintiff  brings this action for herself and on behalf of a class (the “Class”), defined as:  All natural persons residing in the United States (including all territories and other  political subdivisions of the United States) (a) who submitted an employment  application or other request for placement to GEICO; (b) who were the subject of  a consumer report which was used by GEICO or GIS to make an employment  decision from December 30, 2014 to the present; (c) whose consumer report  contained either a “red flag” or a “yellow flag”; and (d) as to whom GEICO either  rejected or delayed employment.     39.  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 GEICO releases of all their claims  for all of their Class claims; and (d) GEICO’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and  representatives and their family members.   41.  Commonality.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the  Class. Without limitation, the total focus of the litigation will be GEICO’s uniform conduct and  procedures; whether rejecting an applicant for employment when a background report contains a  red or yellow flag is an “adverse action’ subject to the FCRA notice requirements; whether  GEICO provided the required notices; when it did so; and, whether GEICO acted willfully in its  failure to design and implement procedures to assure compliant delivery and/or timing of these  notices.  The appropriate amount of uniform statutory and/or punitive damages under 15 U.S.C.  § 1681n is a common question for members of the Class.   42.  Typicality. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the other Class members’ claims. As  described above, Defendant GEICO 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.  GEICO uniformly  breached the FCRA by engaging in the conduct described above, and these violations had the  same effect on each member of the Class.     44.  Questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over questions  affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for  fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The statutory and punitive damages sought by  each member are such that individual prosecution would prove burdensome and expensive given  the complex and extensive litigation necessitated by GEICO’s conduct. It would be virtually  impossible for the members of the Class to, individually, effectively redress the classwide  wrongs done to them, particularly in light of the fact that the claims are in part based on the  failure of GEICO to give Class members the proper notice. Even if the members of the Class  themselves could afford such individual litigation, it would be an unnecessary burden on the  courts.   45.  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 GEICO’s 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.  46.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference those paragraphs set out above as though fully  set forth herein.   48.  Likewise, GEICO’s failure to provide members of the Class the mandated  FTC/CFPB Summary of FCRA Rights, prior to taking such action, violated 15 U.S.C. §  1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii).   49.  GEICO’s creation of a system in which GIS mails pre- and final adverse action  letters robs consumers of a reasonable opportunity to dispute inaccurate information in their  background reports, further violating section 1681b(b)(3).    50.  The conduct, action, and inaction of GEICO were willful, rendering it liable for  statutory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15  U.S.C. § 1681n.   51.  Plaintiff and other members of the Class are entitled to recover costs and  attorneys’ fees as well as appropriate equitable relief from GEICO in an amount to be  determined by the Court, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.  A.  Plaintiff’s Acceptance of Offer of Employment With GEICO   COUNT ONE: VIOLATIONS OF 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)  