The individuals who filed the suit, Jacklyn Feist and Angelica Zimmer, claimed that Petco failed to properly notify applicants that credit checks would be conducted as part of the background screening process. Feist and Zimmer indicated that the disclosure was hidden amid a series of pages of fine print, violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requirement that the disclosure be separate, clear and conspicuous.
U.S. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff filed the order on Nov. 16, 2018, stating that the "disputed factual and legal issues would be complex and costly to resolve at trial." Judge Huff agreed with counsel on both sides, indicating that the deal was in the best interest of all involved. The terms of the settlement afford Petco release from "all claims based on the failure to provide a proper disclosure ... in connection with an employment-related background check" under the FCRA.
The settlement was approved by a California federal court. After attorney fees are paid out, class members will receive either $20 for not being properly notified of their rights or $170 for not being properly notified and subject to adverse action after Petco procured their consumer report.
The case is Feist et al. v. Petco Animal Supplies Inc. et al., case number 3:16-cv-01369, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Source: Law360.com, 11/19/2018
Posted: December 11, 2018