Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, L.L.C.

In December 2008, Justin D’Heilly (plaintiff) applied to work at Domino’s Pizza, L.L.C. (Domino’s) (defendant) as a delivery driver. D’Heilly completed Domino’s standard employment application, including a background investigation information and consent (BIIC) form. The BIIC form stated that Domino’s intended to conduct an investigation of D’Heilly’s background to confirm the information in the application, including credit and driving history and other relevant information. The BIIC form authorized Domino’s to conduct the investigations both prior to and during employment. The form released Domino’s and any background-reporting person or entity from any claims regarding the information contained in the reports. The BIIC form acknowledged that Domino’s would use the information solely for employment-related purposes. D’Heilly was hired and worked for Domino’s until September 2009, when his store ceased scheduling him for work and subsequently terminated him. D’Heilly’s manager stated that D’Heilly was no longer able to work as a delivery driver because something came up on his report relating to motor-vehicle history. D’Heilly was not provided with a copy of the report. In spring 2009, Adrian Singleton (plaintiff) applied for work as a delivery driver at another Domino’s location. Singleton completed the standard application in spring 2009, including the BIIC form. Singleton was hired, but several weeks into his employment he was notified of a potential issue with his application. On July 9, 2009, Singleton received a letter informing him that his employment was being terminated due to information in his consumer report. The letter incorrectly asserted that Singleton was previously provided a copy of the report. The letter also stated that under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Singleton was allowed to receive information contained in the report and had the right to dispute its accuracy. Like D’Heilly, Singleton never received a copy of the report. On July 1, 2011, Singleton and D’Heilly filed a class action against Domino’s for violations of FCRA based on failure to provide the background reports prior to taking adverse action and failure to comply with FCRA’s disclosure and authorization requirements. Domino’s moved to dismiss, arguing that the claims were time barred, that the BIIC form complied with FCRA, and that Domino’s did not commit willful misconduct.