In its motion for summary judgment, defendant argued that since the position "involves access to personal or confidential information" of the employer's customers, a satisfactory credit history was a bona fide occupational requirement. It was the contention of the defendant that the position in question required regular access to personal/confidential information such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth and credit card information. The defendant's motion was granted by the lower court.

The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the position did not require actual "access" to information and that the information in question was not "personal or confidential." The plaintiff's stance was that customer service representatives are merely "conduits" between the customer and other employees as it relates to the information at issue. The Act defines "personal or confidential information" as, "sensitive information that a customer or client of the employing organization gives explicit authorization for the organization to obtain, process, and keep; that the employer entrusts only to managers and a select few employees; or that is stored in secure repositories not accessible by the public or low-level employees."

The appellate court rejected the plaintiff's argument, concluding that to be classified as a "low-level employee," the individual would need to possess a similar level of access to the information in question as to the general public. The court determined that the position being pursued by the plaintiff was accompanied by a need and ability to obtain information much greater than that of the general public. The court also rejected the plaintiff's contention regarding the "conduit" status of a customer service representative, finding that "after initially inputting the information into [the system], [they] continue throughout their employment to have the ability to view at least partial Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, bank account numbers and credit card numbers, in addition to customers' names, address histories, dates of birth, and other identifying information" and that they "use this customer information routinely to assist customers as part of their job duties." Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s granting of summary judgment.

In April 2018, Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Mitchell Goldberg granted a preliminary injunction on the salary inquiry ban provision. In defending this decision, Judge Goldberg stated that the city had not displayed that preventing employers from making inquiries about salary history would support narrowing the wage gap.

In advocating for the block, The Chamber of Commerce of Greater Philadelphia had contested that the law was in violation of the U.S. Constitution as it restricted employers as to what they can say when vetting applicants. The panel determined that the City's rationale behind the restriction was sufficient to justify the law in their reversal decision.

"The city enacted the inquiry provision in an attempt to address this persistent problem and the record is clearly sufficient to withstand this First Amendment challenge to it," stated the panel. Per this conclusion, the panel instructed the lower court to deny the Chamber's injunction bid.

In its reversal, the panel determined that the city possessed sufficient proof that banning salary history questions would assist both women and minorities. This proof included expert testimony from a leading labor economist who demonstrated an academic consensus that women are compensated less than their white, male counterparts and that these discrepancies occur even when evaluating certain criteria such as education and experience. The panel justified the decision further stating that the U.S. Supreme Court had previously "upheld similar restrictions based on much less evidence."

As a result of the civil judgement outcome, Walgreens was instructed to:

• implement a verification program, posting proof of licensure;
• conduct annual audits;
• submit an annual compliance report; and
• pay approximately $7.5 million in penalties, costs and remedial payments.

Ms. Le's employment ended in 2017 and she has since been criminally charged with false personation and related felonies by the California Attorney General's Office.

Companies operating in industries that involve positions for which licensure is required are encouraged to review not only their processes and policies for vetting employees and applicants but also the internal systems being utilized to support the vetting of an individual's licensure status. Furthermore, employers in these spaces beholden to these requirements should allocate the resources necessary to review the procedures and internal workflows in place that monitor the currency and expiration of their employees' licenses.

• The Clarity in Credit Score Formation Act would require the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) to regulate credit-score formulas;
• The Improving Credit Reporting for All Consumers Act would change the process for consumers to dispute items on their credit reports and require agencies to investigate within 30 days.
• The Restricting Credit Checks for Employment Decisions Act would block the use of credit scores in most employment situations unless required by law.
• The Student Borrower Credit Improvement Act would exclude negative information about private education loans when the borrowers have made payments in nine of 10 consecutive months.
• The Restoring Unfairly Impaired Credit and Protecting Consumers Act would take off several years of negative events on credit reports including some medical-related debt and negative data that resulted from fraudulent or deceptive mortgages.
• The Free Credit Scores for Consumers Act would require national credit bureaus to let consumers see their FICO scores annually and discard scores older than two years.

According to the suit, plaintiff was offered a position contingent on passing a background check. Plaintiff claimed that the paperwork she completed included a disclosure authorizing defendant to pull a consumer report but not in a stand-alone format, as required by the FCRA. A few weeks later, the plaintiff received an email from the company stating that her job offer was on hold as a result of the contents included in her returned background check report. The suit claims that while the plaintiff was informed of her right to dispute the accuracy of the information returned in the report by contacting the consumer reporting agency, the email did not include the report itself.

The suit further alleges that defendant directed plaintiff to contact Freeh Group International Solutions, LLC (a risk management firm) who informed her that she had no right to dispute the report. Upon explaining the response, defendant informed plaintiff that she would need to contact TransUnion for a copy of the report. Plaintiff claims she was stymied in her efforts to dispute the reported information and ultimately had her job offer revoked. She is seeking to organize a nationwide class of job applicants.