Upon an offer of employment being revoked, plaintiff filed a class action against a supermarket chain alleging that the disclosure form contained "extraneous" information in violation of the FCRA. Plaintiff also alleged that he was not offered the opportunity to discuss the report directly with the employer. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss which was granted.

On appeal, plaintiff argued that the disclosure contained "extraneous" information in violation of the FCRA's "clear and conspicuous" requirement. According to the court, the disclosure itself is a "plain statement that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes." The criteria for determining whether anything other than the plain statement can be included is whether the text furthers the purpose of the disclosure requirement by "helping" the applicant understand the disclosure. The court examined only the text of the employer's specific disclosure and found that text discussing an applicant's rights other than the right to the disclosure itself is extraneous.

The court further confirmed that there is no conflict between the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA) and the NJLAD. In other words, although the CUMMA does not impose a duty to accommodate medical marijuana use in the workplace, it does not immunize actions that might violate the NJLAD, such as refusing to accommodate or discriminating against employees for medical marijuana use outside the workplace.

In response, the defendant argues that the report was secured upon the plaintiff having signed the authorization form. Defendant also contends that the plaintiff was knowledgeable of the background check per the contents of a job offer letter issued in April 2015 which expressly indicated that his employment hinged on the satisfactory results of a background check. In support of its motion to dismiss, defendant contests that the plaintiff failed to plead allegations of actual damages or demonstrate evidence of a willful violation of the FCRA. The defendant also argues that by waiting four years to file his suit, plaintiff missed the two-year statute of limitations under the FCRA.

A separate motion to compel arbitration was also filed by defendant. The motion argues that when plaintiff applied for the job, he agreed (by separately initialing an arbitration provision) to arbitrate all claims and disputes related to his employment.