(On behalf of Plaintiff individually)   (On behalf of Plaintiff and Class)   1.  Many employers require job applicants to complete a background check  successfully prior to extending an offer of employment.   11.  In August 2020, Stuffed Puffs refused to hire Mr. Minielly based solely on criminal  history record information in a Sentry Link background check that showed five (5) pending  criminal charges under the “National Criminal and Offense” section of the report.      12.  Defendant systematically violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681  et seq. (the “FCRA”), by failing to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible  accuracy of Mr. Minielly’s Criminal Conviction Report.   13.  As a result, Ms. Minielly brings the instant claims, seeking injunctive relief, actual  damages, exemplary and punitive damages, and costs and fees.  II.  19.  Mr. Minielly had been charged in 2018 with six (6) misdemeanor criminal offenses  on one occasion related to a dispute with his ex-partner, his only lifetime contact with the criminal  justice system.    2.  Companies that provide background check services collect information concerning  members of the public, such as criminal histories, into reports and offer the reports for sale.  Including for sale to employers when the employers are conducting background checks on  prospective and current employees.   20.  On April 26, 2019, Mr. Minielly pled guilty to one (1) of these misdemeanor  charges while the other five charges were dismissed in April 2019 in the Lehigh County Court of  Common Pleas.   Mr. Minielly’s Application for Employment with Stuffed Puffs   21.  In or around June 26, 2020, Mr. Minielly applied for an open position with Stuffed  Puffs as a Controller. Mr. Minielly applied for the position by completing a Stuffed Puffs  employment application online.   22.  Mr. Minielly was qualified for the position.   23.  Shortly thereafter, Mr. Minielly interviewed, telephonically and through video  conferencing, and visited Stuffed Puffs’ offices to meet with the company founder regarding  employment.   24.  After the aforesaid series of interviews, Stuffed Puffs made an offer of employment  to Mr. Minielly contingent upon drug screen and background check results.   26.  On or about August 7, 2020, using its usual practices and procedures, Defendant    compiled and furnished criminal records data to Sentry Link for use in a consumer background  report to Stuffed Puffs regarding Mr. Minielly.   27.  On or about August 14, 2020, Mr. Minielly received a letter stating that the  background check report received from Defendant may affect his application for employment with  Stuffed Puffs. Attached to the letter was from Stuffed Puffs was a National Criminal and Offense  Report from Sentry Link which was compiled for Sentry Link by Defendant.   28.  Mr. Minielly was also told verbally by the Talent Acquisition department at Stuffed  Puffs that it could not hire him given the pending status of the aforesaid five (5) criminal charges.    29.  Thereafter, Plaintiff informed Stuffed Puffs of the inaccuracy of the report’s  criminal information showing five (5) pending open and/or pending criminal charges rather than  those charges being accurately reported as dismissed.   3.  Defendant   provides such services. Defendant offers background reports for sale  to employers including background reports containing criminal histories.   30.  Plaintiff disputed the report’s accuracy with Sentry Link accordingly.   31.  Thereafter, Stuffed Puffs informed Mr. Minielly that it was denying his application  for employment through a “Notice of Adverse Action” letter.     32.  In September 2020, Sentry Link informed Mr. Minielly that his dispute with Sentry  Link resulted in the latter removing of the aforesaid five (5) criminal charges altogether thereby  finally correcting the pending/open status of those charges.   34.  The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (“AOPC”) provides  electronic information about Pennsylvania criminal cases to the public.   35.  Information about an individual’s criminal cases in Pennsylvania can be obtained  by any member of the public by searching the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania’s web  portal.  See https://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets.aspx.   36.  Information can also be obtained through bulk distribution of electronic case  records.     37.  AOPC sells this information on a recurring basis.   38.  Upon information and belief, Defendant obtains electronic case record data  generated by AOPC through a reseller.   39.  One of the data elements that is provided by AOPC for each electronic case  record, where available, is the status of the offense charged.    40.  Upon information and belief, Defendant obtained plaintiff’s criminal database  record data from a reseller company called Backgroundchecks.com which records it included in  the report used by Stuffed Puffs as described herein.   42.  Had Defendant followed reasonable procedures and adhered to the foregoing  settlement agreement, it would have never falsely reported the five dismissed charges as pending  and/or open charges on Plaintiff’s consumer background report.   43.  Defendant has deliberately, willfully, recklessly and negligently adopted a policy  and practice that disregards its duty to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible  accuracy of the information about the individuals to whom the reports relate, in violation of the  5.  Unfortunately, for prospective employees whose prospective employers engage  background reporting services based on data compiled by resellers like Defendant, the reports (a  “Criminal Conviction Report”) are often misleading and inaccurate.   51.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a)  and 23(b)(3) on behalf of the following §1681e(b) Outdated Records Class:  All natural persons residing within the United States and its Territories who,  beginning five (5) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing through  the conclusion of this action, were the subject of a consumer report prepared by  Defendant which included any criminal record reported as pending for which the  status or disposition of the public record had changed to “dismissed”, or otherwise  was not updated, more than 30 days prior to the date of the report, and for which  Defendant did not include the most recent status or disposition.   52.  All natural persons residing within the United States and its Territories who,  beginning five (5) years prior to the filing of this Complaint and continuing through the conclusion  of this action, were the subject of a consumer report prepared by Defendant which included one or  more items of criminal record information which had been expunged, sealed, or otherwise removed  from the public record prior to the creation of the report.   53.  Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definition of the Classes based on discovery  or legal developments.   55.  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 Classes and predominate over the questions  affecting only individual members. The common legal and factual questions include, among  others: Whether Defendant violated § 1681e(b) of the FCRA by failing to follow reasonable  procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the consumer reports it sold.  See Soutter v.  Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 307 F.R.D. 183, 201-06 (E.D. Va. 2015) (§ 1681e(b) class claim  involving objective comparison of consumer reports to available public records presented common  questions with respect to accuracy and reasonable procedures)    56.  Typicality.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims  of each Class member, which all arise from the same operative facts and are based on the same  legal theories.   57.  Adequacy.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the  Classes because his interests are aligned with, and are not antagonistic to, the interests of the  members of the Classes he seeks to represent, he has retained counsel competent and experienced  in such litigation, and he intends to prosecute this action vigorously.  Plaintiff and his counsel will  fairly and adequately protect the interests of members of the Classes.   59.  Plaintiff reiterates each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set  forth at herein.    6.  Defendant’s misleading and inaccurate Criminal Conviction Reports result in  adverse employment decisions against qualified employees.   60.  In the “Congressional findings and statement of purpose” of the FCRA, Congress  stated that “[c]onsumer reporting agencies have assumed a vital role in assembling and evaluating  consumer credit and other information on consumers” and “[t]here is a need to insure that  consumer reporting agencies exercise their grave responsibilities with fairness, impartiality, and a  respect for the consumer’s right to privacy.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681(a)(3), (4).    62.  The FCRA applies to Defendant because it is a “person” and a “consumer reporting  agency” under the statute and its National Criminal and Offense Reports are “consumer reports”  under the statute. Id. § 1681a(b), (d)(1), (f).   63.  Indeed, Defendant has admitted the FCRA applies to the National Criminal and  Offense Reports it issues as it did for Plaintiff’s prospective employer herein because it  accompanies each such report with, inter alia, a copy of Plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA.   64.  Under the FCRA, a “consumer reporting agency” is a “person which, for monetary  fees . . . regularly engages . . . in part in the practice of assembling or evaluating . . . information  on consumers for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, and which uses any  means or facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of preparing or furnishing consumer  reports.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f).   65.  Defendant is a “consumer reporting agency” under the FCRA because, for  monetary fees, it assembles or evaluates information on consumers for the purpose of furnishing  National Criminal and Offense Reports to third parties (i.e., the consumers’ current or prospective  employers), and because Defendant uses means or facilities of interstate commerce for the purpose  of preparing or furnishing the National Criminal and Offense Reports. Id.   67.  Mr. Minielly’s National Criminal and Offense Report was not procured using these  special procedures.   68.  Mr. Minielly’s report was not procured in connection with any investigation of  suspected misconduct relating to employment or to compliance with federal, State, or local laws  and regulations, the rules of a self-regulatory organization, or any preexisting written policies of  the employer. § 1681e(b) of the FCRA provides:   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.  15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).   69.  Under FCRA § 1681e(b), Defendant has a duty to “follow reasonable procedures  to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information” in the National Criminal and Offense  Reports. Id. § 1681e(b).   7.  Defendant provided a misleading and inaccurate Criminal Conviction Report to  Plaintiff’s prospective employer, Stuffed Puffs, LLC in that it produced information used in a  Sentry Link background check report which reported five (5) pending criminal charges under the  “National Criminal and Offense” section of the report. Those charges, were in fact, dropped and  dismissed.    70.  Consumer reports are inaccurate for purposes of § 1681e(b) not only when they are  facially false, but also when they are technically accurate yet nonetheless misleading.   71.  As set forth above, when preparing the National Criminal and Offense Report,  which are consumer reports, Defendant  has lacked, and continues to lack, reasonable procedures  to assure the maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the information about  whom the reports relate. Defendant fails to follow such reasonable procedures because it  knowingly, recklessly, or negligently reports summary convictions under the “Felony and  Misdemeanor” § of the National Criminal and Offense Report.   73.  Defendant’s violations of § 1681e(b) were willful in that (i) it knew, or reasonably  should have known, that it was failing to comply with the FCRA and/or (ii) it was acting in reckless  disregard of its responsibilities under the FCRA.   74.  In the alternative, Defendant’s violations of § 1681e(b) were negligent in that it had  an affirmative statutory duty to employ reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible  accuracy of the information in the consumer reports in question, but failed to comply with that  statutory duty.   75.  If Defendant willfully violated § 1681e(b), Plaintiff is entitled to any actual  damages he sustained or damages of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000; such amount of  punitive damages as the court may allow; and the costs of the action together with reasonable  attorney’s fees as determined by the court, as specified in § 1681n(a)(1)(A), (2), and (3).   76.  In the alternative, if Defendant negligently violated § 1681e(b), Plaintiff is entitled  to any actual damages he sustained, along with the costs of the action together with reasonable  attorney’s fees as determined by the court, as specified in § 1681o(a)(1), (2).  77.  Plaintiff reiterates each of the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set  forth at herein.   78.  Pursuant to § 1681n and § 1681o of the FCRA, Defendant is liable for violating  FCRA § 1681k(a) by engaging in the following conduct by failing to maintain strict procedures to  insure that the public record information it sells to employers is complete and up to date.  8.  Thus, the Defendant presented Mr. Minielly’s criminal history information in its  National Criminal and Offense Report to Sentry Link in a manner that misleads and is inaccurate,  which consequently injured Mr. Minielly.   9.  As described in detail below, Defendant has injured Mr. Minielly by providing his  prospective employer through Sentry Link with misleading and inaccurate Criminal Conviction  Report. The inaccurate Criminal Conviction Report resulted in, among other things, Mr. Minielly’s  offer of employment being rescinded by prospective employer, Stuffed Puffs, LLC.   