Gilberg v. California Check Cashing Stores, LLC

Desiree Gilberg (plaintiff) applied for employment at CheckSmart Financial, LLC (CheckSmart) (defendant). Two weeks later, CheckSmart had Gilberg sign a separate form entitled “Disclosure Regarding Background Investigation.” The form, which had capitalized, bolded, and underlined section headers, explained that CheckSmart could obtain information about applicants from consumer reporting agencies for employment purposes and that applicants had certain rights regarding such information. It elaborated that the reports might contain information related to employment history, litigation history, driving records, credit reports, and other information. The form also contained certain state-mandated disclosures under subheaders for the relevant states. The form concluded with an acknowledgment and authorization under which Gilberg, as the applicant, acknowledged reading the form and authorizing CheckSmart to obtain the mentioned reports. After receiving the signed form, CheckSmart ran a criminal-background report on Gilberg, which came back clean. CheckSmart then hired Gilberg. Gilberg left CheckSmart five months later. She subsequently filed a putative-class-action suit against CheckSmart, alleging that CheckSmart’s disclosure that it would obtain a consumer report did not comply with the requirements of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). The district court granted summary judgment in CheckSmart’s favor, holding that its disclosure form complied with the acts. Gilberg appealed.