14.  Screening Solutions is among the biggest of this 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 prospective employers.   15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)  (Class Claim, against Target only)   15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)  (Individual Claim, against First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. only)   15.  Pursuant to a contract with Target, Screening Solutions has been performing a  background review of Target job applicants using the particular elements chosen by Target from  Screening Solutions’ offered products. Besides choosing the particular product elements to be  included in a standard screen, Target also chose the order in which the various elements would  be applied, so that a standard screen performed by Screening Solutions would progress  automatically through the chosen hierarchy of elements. In this way, a passing score at one stage  was programmed to lead to the next stage and a failing score at any stage would result in an end  to the screen and a score of “In-Eligible for Hire.”   17.  Target used this screening protocol as a filter to weed out applicants scored by  Screening Solutions as Ineligible for Hire. Those applicants passing the entire screen were  treated by Target as eligible for hire; those failing to pass any element were scored “In-Eligible”  and removed from consideration for employment.    18.  The particular scoring hierarchy used by Screening Solutions for Target was  based on an “adjudication matrix” negotiated between the two companies. With regard to  customers using the scoring service, Screening Solutions personnel would adjudicate a job  applicant based on this matrix. For example, upon information and belief, the Target matrix  provided that an Esteem match, or an Esteem match meeting specified criteria, would trigger a  score of “Ineligible for Hire.”    19.  This “scoring” or “adjudication” service is attractive to Screening Solutions’  large-chain customers like Target who are constantly hiring and promoting in very large  volumes, providing the customer with a remote, outsourced tool to make its employment  decisions rapidly and efficiently.   20.  According to Screening Solutions, Esteem was a “Retail Theft Contributory  Database” that “helps organizations identify applicants with history of theft or fraud.”  It was a  “membership-based contributory program [which] allows companies to legally share theft and  fraud incident information.”     22.  When an Esteem-participating employer “contributed” a new Esteem report to  Screening Solutions, this submission consisted of two parts; first, a data transmission composed  of several defined fields of information concerning the incident, and second, an electronic copy  of a so-called “signed admission statement” regarding the incident. (Screening Solutions referred  to this statement as a Verified Admission Statement or “VAS” and that term will be used  hereafter.)    23.  After receiving a new Esteem report from a customer, Screening Solutions would  create an Esteem record in its database for that particular incident. The file maintained for a  particular incident would consist of data pertaining to the identity of the consumer subject of the  report; data about the specific incident; a classification by type of theft; and, an electronic image  of the VAS.    24.  While it was operational, Screening Solutions would create new Esteem files with  the knowledge that the customer submitting an “admission statement” had likely not provided a  copy to the employee and not disclosed to the employee at the time it was procured that the  statement was going to be contributed into a nationwide theft database. In fact, Screening  Solutions knew that many of its customers preferred keeping the entire Esteem system secret  from its employees and made deliberate decisions not to interfere with its customers’ discretion  in this regard.   26.  For those customers, like Target, that used Screening Solutions’ scoring service to  adjudicate the eligibility of the job applicant, a verified Esteem match would also prompt  Screening Solutions to score the applicant Ineligible, in accordance with the Target adjudication  matrix.   27.  In March of 2012, a Maryland Target store selected Plaintiff Freckleton for hire as  a Sales Floor Team Member, conditional on her clearing the Screening Solutions background  search. Pursuant to its standard hiring practices, Target ordered a background screen of Plaintiff  on or about March 23, 2012.   28.  Screening Solutions conducted the background screen of Plaintiff on that same  day, March 23, 2012.    29.  After Screening Solutions determined that Plaintiff was drug-free and validated  her Social Security number, it conducted a search of its Esteem database and discovered a match.  In accordance with its standard procedures, Screening Solutions conducted a “verification” of the  Esteem file, including in this determination a review of a VAS on file pertaining to a theft report  contributed to Esteem by CVS about an incident that purportedly occurred in a CVS store in  December, 2011.   31.  Also in accordance with its standard practice, this rapid response by Screening  Solutions to Target occurred prior to any communication with Plaintiff regarding the adverse  action that had already happened.  Several days after Screening Solutions transmitted the  background report to Target, either Target, or Screening Solutions on behalf of Target, provided  Plaintiff with a copy of the background report, along with a notice representing that the report  might have an adverse effect on her application for employment.     32.  While Plaintiff did not retain a copy of that mailing from Target or from  Screening Solutions on behalf of Target, she recently obtained from Screening Solutions a copy  of the consumer report that was included in that mailing.  A copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A.   33.  With regard to job applicants adjudicated as Ineligible for Hire based on an  Esteem match and who were sent untimely pre-adverse action notices by either Target or  Screening Solutions on behalf of Target, such notices never included copies of the Esteem VAS  that Screening Solutions used to “verify” the Esteem match that was the basis of the “Ineligible”  score.   V.  34.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a class defined as follows:  All employees or applicants for employment of Defendant Target residing in the  United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the  United States) who were the subject of a background report that scored them  ”Ineligible for Hire,” beginning two years prior to the filing of this action and  continuing to the resolution of this action, and for whom Target failed to provide  the employee or applicant a copy of their consumer report or a copy of the FCRA  summary of rights at least five business days before that determination.   36.  Common Questions of Law and Fact.  FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(2).  Common  questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class, and predominate over the  questions affecting only individual members. The common legal and factual questions include,  among others:  a)  Whether Target failed to provide each employee or applicant for  employment a copy of their consumer report at least five business days before it took an adverse  action based upon the consumer report;  b)  Whether Target failed to provide each employee or applicant for  employment a copy of their written notice of FCRA rights at least five business days before it  took an adverse action based upon the consumer report;  c)  Whether Target acted willfully in disregard of the rights of employees and  applicants in its failure to require its employees, automated systems and/or outside vendors to  send consumers copies of all consumer reports relied on in classifying employment applicants as  Ineligible for Hire, with a written statement of their FCRA rights, before such classification  occurred.     37.  Typicality. FED. R. CIV. P. 23(a)(3).  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims  of each Class member.  Plaintiff has the same claims for statutory and punitive damages that she  seeks for absent class members.    39.  Predominance and Superiority.  FED. R. CIV. P. 23(b)(3).  Questions of law  and fact common to the Class members 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 Target’s conduct.  It would be virtually impossible for the  members of the Class individually to redress effectively the wrongs done to them.  Even if the  members of the Class themselves could afford such individual litigation, it would be an  unnecessary burden on the courts.  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 Target’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 a  unified proceeding.  VI.  40.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations.   41.  Plaintiff is a “consumer,” as defined by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).   42.  Screening Solutions background reports are “consumer reports” within the  meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).   44.  Under the FCRA, a “user” of a consumer report who intends to take an “adverse  action” on a job application “based in whole or in part” on information obtained from the  consumer report must provide notice of that fact to the consumer-applicant, and must include  with the notice a copy of the consumer report and a notice of the consumer’s dispute rights under  the FCRA, before taking the adverse action.  15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A).  After an adverse  action occurs, the consumer employment applicant must receive a second notice, mandated by 15  U.S.C. §1681m.     45.  The reasons for the “pre-adverse action” requirement with regard to employment  situations are to alert the job applicant that she is about to be rejected based on the content of a  report, and provide her an opportunity to challenge the accuracy or relevancy of the information  with the consumer reporting agency or the user before that job prospect is lost. The FCRA  provides that any person “using a consumer report for employment purposes” who intends to  take any “adverse action based in whole or in part on the report,” must provide the consumer a  written description of the consumer’s rights under the FCRA, as prescribed by the Federal Trade  Commission, before taking such adverse action. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A).    46.  For purposes of this requirement, an “adverse action” includes “any . . . decision    . . . that adversely affects any current or prospective employee,” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(k)(1)(B)(ii),  or “an action taken or determination that is . . . (I) made in connection with an application that  was made by . . . any consumer, . . . and  (II) adverse to the interests of the consumer.” 15 U.S.C.  § 1681a(k)(1)(B)(v).   47.  Defendant Target is a “person” that regularly uses background reports for  employment purposes.     49.  Target willfully violated section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA by providing Plaintiff  and the members of the Class with the following items after, rather than before, it took adverse  actions regarding applications for employment: (a) the required Pre-Adverse Action Notice; (b) a  copy of the background report; and, (c) a written description of the consumer’s rights under the  FCRA.  As a result of this violation of the FCRA, Plaintiff and the Class members were denied  the opportunity to review and dispute the report before Target took adverse action on their  employment or promotion applications based on those reports.    50.  Target also willfully violated section 1681b(b)(3) of the FCRA by never  providing copies of the VAS to Plaintiff and those Class members whose adverse action was  based on an Esteem match.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Freckleton and the Class pray for relief as follows:  A.  An order certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23 and appointing Plaintiff and  the undersigned counsel of record to represent same;  B.  An award of statutory and punitive damages for Plaintiff and the Class;  C.  An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;  D.  An award of attorneys’ fees and costs; and,  E.  Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.  51.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations.   55.  15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) provides that:  “Whenever a consumer reporting agency  prepares a consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible  accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.”   58.  As a result of Defendant Screening Solutions’ violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b),  Plaintiff suffered intense emotional and reputational harm, being branded a thief in a nationwide  database available to hundreds of her potential future employers.   WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Freckleton prays for the following relief, pursuant to 15 U.S.C.  §§ 1681n or 1681n, as follows:  A.  A finding that Screening Solutions negligently violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) as  to Plaintiff Freckleton only;  B.  An award of actual damages;   C.  Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and,   D.  Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.  :  SOLUTIONS , INC., f/k/a LEXISNEXIS   : 