  FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a)  (PLAINTIFF v. LEXISNEXIS)   11.  LexisNexis 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.   13.  The subscribing customer-participants in ESTEEM include some of the nation’s  largest retail chains, such as CVS and Rite Aid.   14.  Participation in the ESTEEM network is governed by an “ESTEEM Member  Service Agreement,” executed by the individual corporate customer and LexisNexis.       15.  ESTEEM is operated in accordance with operating standards which are called the  “Rules of Participation.”     16.  Under the Rules of Participation, and as a contractual quid pro quo for being able  to initiate an ESTEEM “inquiry” for the purpose of checking on the background of a job  applicant, ESTEEM subscribers such as CVS are required to “contribute” new records of theft  incidents involving their own employees or customers.     17.  The Rules of Participation define a reportable theft incident as containing the  following four characteristics:  • The incident must involve a theft of merchandise, cash or company property, but a  termination for non-criminal reasons or as a result of a company loss not strictly related  to theft or fraud committed by that consumer should not get reported.  • The individual who is the subject of the report must be at least sixteen (16) years of age at  the time of the incident.  • The dollar value of the particular theft must be at least $5.  • Unless the employer has actually referred the incident for criminal prosecution, it must  obtain and send to LexisNexis a “signed admission statement.”   19.  When an ESTEEM-participating employer customer “contributes” a new  ESTEEM report to LexisNexis, this submission consists of two parts.  The first is a data  transmission, composed of several defined fields of information concerning the incident (name,  address, birth date and Social Security number of the purported thief; the date and store location  of the incident; and the amount of the theft).  The second is an electronic copy of a “signed  admission statement” regarding the incident. (LexisNexis refers to the statement as a Voluntary  Admission Statement or “VAS” and that term will be used hereafter.)    20.  LexisNexis creates an ESTEEM record in its system for each new incident report  contributed by a customer employer.  This record consists of data pertaining to the identity of the  consumer subject of the report; data about the specific incident; a classification by LexisNexis of  the type of theft described in the VAS; and an electronic image of the VAS.    21.  LexisNexis permits its customers, such as CVS, to submit so-called “admission  statements” without providing copies to the employee and without disclosing to the employee  that they intend to furnish information about the incident to a nationwide theft database. In fact,  LexisNexis knows that many of its customers would prefer not providing copies to employees at  the time the “admissions” are procured and not disclosing the intended purpose of those  statements, and has made a deliberate decision not to interfere with its customers’ discretion in  this regard.   23.  The first time LexisNexis receives an ESTEEM inquiry regarding an applicant for  employment that yields a “match” with an ESTEEM record on file, it conducts a procedure it  calls “verifying” the VAS.  This “verification” activity is conducted by a small clerical unit  located in Charlotte, North Carolina. The activity consists of comparing three electronic files in  its system:  (1) the personal data contained within the “inquiry” received from the customer that  is considering  the employment application; (2) the incident data originally provided by the  contributing employer and (3) the VAS from the contributing employer supposedly supporting  the incident report.   24.    If the clerk conducting the “verification” confirms that the consumer named in  the inquiry matches an incident report and that the date and amount of the supposed theft  matches a VAS which contains the date and dollar amount listed in the report, she will reclassify  the VAS in the ESTEEM system as a “verified” admission statement.   25.  During the relevant time period, the ESTEEM verification clerks were also  supposed to confirm that the text of the VAS includes some form of acceptance of responsibility  by the consumer for an employer loss, but they did not have the discretion to judge whether the  acceptance of responsibility in the VAS consituted an actual admission of theft. As a result,  LexisNexis routinely has classified non-theft-related losses resulting, for example, from  employee carelessness, inattention or work-rule violations, as thefts.       57.  Plaintiff  brings this action on behalf of a class defined  as follows:  All employees or applicants for employment of Defendant Rite Aid residing in the  United States (including all territories and other political subdivisions of the  United States) who were the subject of a Background Report obtained from  LexisNexis that was used by Rite Aid to make an adverse employment decision  regarding such employee or applicant for employment, within two years prior to  the filing of this action, and for whom Rite Aid 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 it took such adverse action.   59.  Existence and Predominance of 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 Rite Aid 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 Rite Aid 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 Rite Aid acted willfully in disregard of the rights of employees  and applicants in its failure to permit its employees and automated systems to send consumers  their full consumer files and a written statement of their FCRA rights.     60.  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.    62.  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 Rite Aid’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 Rite Aid’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.  63.   Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations.   64.  Plaintiff is a “consumer,” as defined by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).   65.  LexisNexis Background Reports are “consumer reports” within the meaning of 15  U.S.C. § 1681a(d).   67.  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).   68.  Defendant Rite Aid is a “person” that regularly uses LexisNexis Background  Reports for employment purposes.     69.  The FCRA requires Rite Aid, as a user of consumer reports for employment  purposes, before taking adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, to provide to the  consumer to whom the report relates, a copy of the report and a written description of the  consumer’s rights under the FCRA.  15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(i), (ii).   71.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations.   72.  Lexis Nexis is a “consumer reporting agency,” as defined by FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §  1681a(f).     73.  At all times pertinent hereto, the Plaintiff was a “consumer” as that term is  defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).   74.  At all times pertinent hereto, the above-mentioned consumer reports were  “consumer reports” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d).   75.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all other factual allegations set forth in the  Complaint.   76.  LexisNexis violated 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b) by failing to establish or to follow  reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of Plaintiff’s  consumer reports and the files it published and maintained.    77.  As a result of LexisNexis violations of 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b), Plaintiff suffered  actual damages including but not limited to: loss of employment income and benefits, damage to  reputation, embarrassment, humiliation and other mental, physical and emotional distress.   78.  The violations by LexisNexis were willful rendering Defendant liable for punitive  damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n.  In the  alternative, LexisNexis was negligent, which entitles Plaintiff to recovery under 15 U.S.C.  §1681o.   80.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all preceding allegations.   81.  LexisNexis, in its capacity as a “consumer reporting agency,” is required by the  FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681g(a), to furnish to a requesting consumer “all information in the  consumer’s file at the time of the request.”     82.  The information that LexisNexis maintains regarding consumers in its ESTEEM  database consists of (a) uniformly submitted electronic fields of information about the supposed  theft incident and (b) the written VAS that the ESTEEM member who “contributes” the  information represents to be a signed admission about the supposed theft.   83.  Despite having received a request from Plaintiff for a copy of her individual file,  LexisNexis willfully failed to provide her with a copy of her signed VAS.   85.  The failure of LexisNexis to provide Plaintiff with the actual “admission  statement” forming the basis of the ESTEEM theft report is particularly egregious in that, by  such failure, LexisNexis systematically undermined the possibility of a meaningful consumer  dispute by requiring Plaintiff to dispute the accuracy of an “admission statement” it did not let  her see.   86.  Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages, statutory damages, costs and  attorney’s fees from LexisNexis in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15  U.S.C. §1681n and §1681o.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against  Defendant LexisNexis, for the following requested relief:  A.  Actual damages;  B.  Statutory damages;  C.  Punitive damages;  D.  Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o;  and  E.  Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.  87.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates all other factual allegations set forth in the  Complaint.   89.   As a result of LexisNexis’ violations of 15 U.S.C. §1681i(a)(1), Plaintiff suffered  actual damages, including but not limited to: loss of employment income and benefits, damage to  reputation, embarrassment, humiliation and other emotional and mental distress.   90.   LexisNexis’ violations were willful, rendering Defendant liable for punitive  damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n.  In the  alternative, LexisNexis was negligent which entitles Plaintiff to recovery under 15 U.S.C.  §1681o.   91.   Plaintiff is entitled to recover actual damages, statutory damages, costs and  attorney’s fees from LexisNexis in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15  U.S.C. §1681n and §1681o.  WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and damages against  Defendant LexisNexis, for the following requested relief:  A.  Actual damages;  B.  Statutory damages;  C.  Punitive damages;  D.  Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n and 1681o;  and  E.  Such other and further relief as may be necessary, just and proper.  92.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all preceding allegations.   94.  As a result of LexisNexis’ violations of 15 U.S.C. §1681i)a)(5)(A), Plaintiff  suffered actual damages, including but not limited to:  loss of employment, damage to reputation,  embarrassment, humiliation and other mental and emotional distress.   95.  LexisNexis’ violations were willful, rendering Defendant liable for punitive  damages in an amount to be determined by the Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n.  In the  alternative, LexisNexis was negligent, entitling Plaintiff to recover under 15 U.S.C. §1681o.   A.  Background:  LexisNexis’s Screening Activities, Including ESTEEM   FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)  (CLASS CLAIM v. RITE AID)   FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)  (PLAINTIFF v. LEXISNEXIS)   FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(1)  (PLAINTIFF v. LEXISNEXIS)   FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 1681i(a)(5)(A)  (PLAINTIFF v. LEXISNEXIS)  