SAN FRANCISCO – California's highest court upheld a judgment that the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act is not rendered unconstitutionally vague in certain instances and remanded it for further proceedings.
Justice Ming Chin, on the bench of the panel at the Supreme Court of California, issued a 15-page ruling on Aug. 20, affirming the 2nd District Court of Appeals' decision in the lawsuit filed by Eileen Connor against First Student Inc. and other companies.
Connor, in conjunction with other school bus drivers, filed a class action suit against First Education and their other employers and investigative consumer reporting agencies that ran background checks on them.
She alleged she was working as a school bus driver in October 2007 when First Student requested those checks to be conducted on its employees. Those checks, as stated in the ruling, were performed with the purpose of confirming that Connor and other employees were "properly qualified to safely perform their job duties."
A safety packet was sent to Connor before the checks were conducted. The packet came with a notice allowing her to "view the file maintained on her, receive a summary of that file by telephone, or obtain a copy of it," according to the ruling.
The ruling stated that that notice in the packet also allowed Connor to "request an 'investigative consumer report' that included 'names and dates of previous employers, reason for termination of employment, work experience, accidents, academic history, professional credentials, drugs/alcohol use, [and] information relating to [the employee’s] character ... which may reflect upon [her] potential for employment.’”
Also in the notice, Connor was given the option to receive a copy by checking a box, which also included a notice that described her rights under the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). The box also contained a disclaimer that would release First Student "from all claims and damages arising out of or relating to its background investigation," if Conner checked the box, according to the ruling.
Connor said the notice did not meet any of ICRAA's requirements, as well as her employer "failed to obtain her written authorization to conduct the background check," suing the company thereafter, according to the ruling.
In the lawsuit, the lower court decided to grant summary judgment to First Student, stating that ICRAA was "unconstitutionally vague as applied to Connor’s claim," as it overlapped with Consumer Credit Report Agencies Act (CCRAA), which does not have the same requirements.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, claiming that agencies "can comply with each Act without violating the other.”
Chin agreed with the Court of Appeals' ruling, affirming that "the background check that First conducted here is an investigative consumer report under ICRAA because it reported on Connor’s 'character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living,'" and that "CCRAA also applies here does not exempt First from the requirement that it obtain Connor’s written authorization under ICRAA before conducting or procuring a background investigation."
Supreme Court of California case number S229428