1. A case with a final disposition that is not a conviction.
2. A juvenile case resulting in an adjudication of delinquency.
3. A conviction of a summary offense.
4. A case that was expunged or pardoned."

Employers who otherwise must consider the above to comply with federal or other state requirements are exempt from the law.

Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to provide him a copy of the consumer report prior to taking adverse action. As part of his claim, Plaintiff also alleged that he suffered actual harm as a result of the violation in the form of a lost employment opportunity, wage loss and emotional distress. Defendant argued that Plaintiff "failed to articulate any injury" because an informational injury does not suffice for Article III standing. Parties seeking to sue in federal court are required to establish Article III standing, which requires that the plaintiff demonstrate: (1) an injury in fact; (2) that the injury was caused by defendant's conduct; and (3) that the injury can likely be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.

The Supreme Court has held that "[o]nly plaintiffs concretely harmed by a defendant's statutory violation have Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court." See Spokeo, Inv. V. Robins, 156 S. Ct. 1540 (2016). The Court further held that "Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation" and it was not the case that "a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right." Id.

Here, the court found that Defendant's failure to supply Plaintiff with a copy of his report was material, as it ultimately prevented him from being hired. As such, the court denied Defendant's motion and held that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that a concrete and particularized injury in fact was suffered, meeting the requirements for Article III standing.

Originally, Defendant removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction (requires an amount in controversy of $75,000). While the parties agreed that PAGA claims totaled $2,125, they disagreed on the potential liability of the ICRAA claim, which generated the basis of the motion to remand. ICRAA's damages provision states that a user who operates out of compliance with ICRAA is liable for any damages sustained by the subject as a result of the lack of compliance, or (except in the case of class actions) $10,000, whichever is greater.

Defendant contended that the amount in question was $120,000 based on Plaintiff's multiple, separate, ICRAA statutory violation allegations. The Plaintiff argued that the claim amount was only $20,000 (representing $10,000 each for the two individuals that comprise the Defendant). Defendant further argued that while she alleged multiple technical violations of the ICRAA, only one potential statutory penalty per background report was permissible.

Ultimately, the court agreed with the Plaintiff's interpretation. The court arrived at this decision namely based on the language included in Section 1786.50(a) of the Act, which states that "a Defendant who fails to comply with 'any requirement ... with respect to an investigative consumer report' is liable to the consumer for actual damages, or $10,000, whichever sum is greater."

To qualify, the incident must have occurred in Philadelphia and within the last 30 days. If these thresholds apply, individuals can initiate the process by completing the intake form. Individuals may also need to secure additional information about the employer’s drug testing requirements. Completed intake forms may be mailed, faxed or submitted electronically via email to PCHR staff for review. Once reviewed, PCHR will contact individuals about potentially filing a complaint.