throbber
Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DONALD BUCKLEY,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` vs.
`
`CHECKR, INC., LYFT, INC., and UBER
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS
`OF THE FAIR CREDIT
`REPORTING ACT AND
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Donald Buckley (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Buckley”), by and through the undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby submits his Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (“Complaint”) against
`
`Defendants Checkr, Inc. (“Checkr”), Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”),
`
`(all together, “Defendants”), alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
`
`Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the events
`
`or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants regularly transact business within the District. Defendants regularly direct
`
`business at the District. Defendants voluntarily and purposefully avail themselves of the
`
`protections of the District, such that personal jurisdiction is established.
`
`//
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2
`
`PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff, Donald Buckley, is a natural person who resides in Suffolk County, New York.
`
`Plaintiff is a “consumer” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(c).
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Checkr is regularly engaged in the business of compiling consumer credit
`
`information to include in background checks and employment-purposed consumer reports that it
`
`sells to third parties. Therefore, Checkr is both a “consumer reporting agency” and a “reseller” as
`
`defined by 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(f), (u).
`
`6.
`
`Checkr is a for-profit corporation incorporated in Delaware. Checkr maintains a principal
`
`place of business located at 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, California 94104.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Uber is an American technology company whose services include ride-hailing,
`
`food delivery, package delivery, couriers, freight transportation, and other transportation-related
`
`work. Upon information and belief, Uber regularly hires Checkr to provide them with background
`
`reports for new and existing employee hires. Therefore, Uber is a “person” as defined by 15 U.S.C
`
`§ 1681a(b).
`
`8.
`
`Uber is a for-profit corporation incorporated in Delaware. Uber maintains a principal place
`
`of business located at 1455 Market St., 4th Floor, San Francisco, California 94013. Defendant may
`
`be served through its registered agent C T Corporation System, located at 330 N Brand Blvd Suite
`
`700, Glendale, CA 91203.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Lyft is an American company whose services include ride-hailing, food
`
`delivery, and offering vehicles, motorized scooters, and bicycle sharing for hire. Upon information
`
`and belief, Lyft regularly hires Checkr to provide them with background reports for new and
`
`existing employee hires. Therefore, Lyft is a “person” as defined by 15 U.S.C § 1681a(b).
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3
`
`10.
`
`Lyft is a for-profit corporation incorporated in Delaware. Lyft maintains a principal place
`
`of business located at 185 Berry St., Suite 5000, San Francisco, California 94107. Defendant may
`
`be served through its registered agent C T Corporation System, located at 330 N Brand Blvd Suite
`
`700, Glendale, CA 91203.
`
`11.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants acted through their agents, employees,
`
`officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees,
`
`representatives, and insurers.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though
`
`they are fully detailed herein.
`
`13.
`
`Upon information and belief, both Uber and Lyft completed yearly background checks on
`
`Plaintiff using Checkr for the purpose of evaluating Plaintiff’s continued employment with the
`
`company.
`
`14.
`
`Prior to 2021, Plaintiff never had any issue passing his background checks using the Social
`
`Security Number (“SSN”) uploaded into his Checkr profile.
`
`15.
`
`Further, Plaintiff did not have any issues when Checkr ran a background check on him for
`
`his Postmates’ application in or around February 2021.
`
`Facts Specific to Defendants Uber and Checkr
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff was an Uber driver for approximately three years beginning in 2018 prior to the
`
`incidents outlined in this Complaint.
`
`17. When Plaintiff applied for the position at Uber, he authorized Uber to request employment-
`
`purposed consumer reports from Checkr.
`
`18.
`
`In or around April 2021, a background check was ordered by Uber using Checkr.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 4
`
`19.
`
`In or around late April 2021, Plaintiff received notice from Uber that there was an issue
`
`with his background check. Plaintiff was unable to continue working for Uber with an incomplete
`
`background check; Plaintiff was notified that Checkr was unable to complete his background check
`
`due to a problem with his social security number.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiff almost immediately called Uber to find out precisely what the problem was and
`
`why his account was suspended; Uber informed him that he would need to contact Checkr directly
`
`to resolve the issue.
`
`21.
`
`From May to July 2021, Plaintiff tried numerous times to contact Checkr, via phone, mail,
`
`and online complaints. All these attempts went unanswered.
`
`22.
`
`In fact, despite numerous attempts to call the phone number for Checkr that Plaintiff was
`
`provided, Checkr never answered a single phone call and Plaintiff could not leave a message.
`
`23.
`
`During this time, Plaintiff also kept Uber informed of his inability to reach Checkr in order
`
`to resolve the issue.
`
`24.
`
`Around June 2021, Plaintiff ran a background check on himself through non-party
`
`Truthfinder and was able to successfully pull his background report with no issues.
`
`25.
`
`On or about July 2, 2021, Plaintiff received an email response from Uber saying that
`
`because he failed to correct his SSN in his Checkr Candidate Portal, Checkr was unable to process
`
`his background check. Therefore, Uber was unable to continue to partner with Plaintiff because
`
`his background check was never completed.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff continued to reach out to Uber and Checkr because his SSN had not changed and
`
`was identical to previous years.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff has access to Checkr and was able to view his portal for Uber, which showed his
`
`SSN ending in the correct and same four digits as it always has.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5
`
`28.
`
`On or about July 9, 2021, Plaintiff received an email response from Uber that was almost
`
`identical to the one received on or about July 2, 2021. The email again stated that Uber was unable
`
`to partner with him due to Checkr’s inability to complete a background check.
`
`29.
`
`On this same date, Plaintiff submitted another request to Checkr stating that he had been
`
`unable to receive information about his background report. The request detailed that he had made
`
`multiple attempts to contact Checkr to resolve this problem, previously calling them numerous
`
`times, and submitting additional requests through their website.
`
`30.
`
`Finally, on or about July 26, 2021, Plaintiff received a response from Checkr
`
`(representative: “Aaron”) relating to his request that was submitted on or about June 25, 2021.
`
`31.
`
`Aaron stated that Checkr was unable to complete his SSN trace based on the information
`
`he provided and told him to contact Uber to resolve the issue.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff responded on or about July 26, 2021 and explained that Uber referred him to
`
`Checkr to resolve the issues.
`
`33.
`
`On or about July 26, 2021, Aaron responded again, apologizing for any confusion, and
`
`stating for the first time that “The SSN [he] provided is associated with a number on the Social
`
`Security Administration’s (“SSA”) Death Master File.” The email response also told Plaintiff to
`
`contact the SSA.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff was shocked to discover he was being reported inaccurately as deceased.
`
`Upon information and belief, there is no such thing as the Death Master File.
`
`Upon information and belief, the SSA does not provide or sell a list of deceased persons to
`
`consumer reporting agencies.
`
`37.
`
`On or about July 26, 2021, Plaintiff called the SSA to ask whether or not they were
`
`inaccurately reporting him as deceased as well.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 6
`
`38.
`
`The SSA representative informed Plaintiff that he is not listed as deceased and said that the
`
`SSA would mail him paperwork to help prove he was in fact alive.
`
`39.
`
`On or about July 26, 2021, Plaintiff replied to Aaron at Checkr informing Checkr that he
`
`called the SSA and was told there is no issue with his SSN.
`
`40. When Plaintiff received each response from Checkr he was distraught and confused.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff was and remains unable to rectify the situation because his correct SSN number
`
`is currently still uploaded to his Checkr portal.
`
`Facts Specific to Defendants Lyft and Checkr
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff was a Lyft driver for approximately two years beginning in 2019 prior to the
`
`incidents outlined in this Complaint.
`
`43.
`
`Upon information and belief, Lyft completed yearly background checks on Plaintiff using
`
`Checkr for the purpose of evaluating Plaintiff’s continued employment with the company.
`
`44. When Plaintiff applied for the position at Lyft, he authorized Lyft to request employment-
`
`purposed consumer reports from Checkr.
`
`45.
`
`On or around June 1, 2021, Plaintiff received an email communication from Lyft stating
`
`that they were unable to complete his annual background check and that additional information
`
`was needed. Plaintiff was unable to continue working for Lyft with an incomplete background
`
`check.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff is able to view his Checkr portal for Lyft, which shows his SSN ending in the
`
`correct last four digits as it always has.
`
`47.
`
`On or about July 27, 2021, Checkr (representative “Julianne”), contacted Plaintiff to inform
`
`him that Checkr could not complete his background check for Lyft either due to him appearing on
`
`the SSA Master Death File.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 7
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff was again shocked as just a few months prior; he had no issues completing his
`
`Postmates’ background check with Checkr.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff was and remains unable to rectify the situation because his correct SSN number
`
`is currently still uploaded to his Checkr portal.
`
`Facts Relevant to Defendants Checkr, Lyft, and Uber
`
`50.
`
`Checkr knew or should have known that deceased people do not contact them to update
`
`their information.
`
`51.
`
`It is unclear why Checkr continued to inform Plaintiff that it is unable to verify his SSN
`
`number as that belonging to a living individual when the SSA confirmed that their files reflect that
`
`Plaintiff is alive and stated that they will be sending him proof of this.
`
`52.
`
`On or around July 16, 2021, Plaintiff pulled his credit reports from the three major credit
`
`reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion: Upon information and belief none of the
`
`three national CRAs were reporting Plaintiff as deceased.
`
`53.
`
`Checkr received actual notice that Plaintiff was not deceased when Plaintiff contacted them
`
`directly to find out why Checkr was unable to release his background report.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`Typically, dead people don’t apply for employment.
`
`Despite knowing that its procedures often result in inaccurate reporting, Checkr recklessly
`
`and knowingly fails to employ procedure to assure only maximally accurate consumer
`
`information is compiled and published in the consumer reports it sells to third parties for a profit.
`
`56.
`
`As a direct result of Checkr’s failure to rectify the inaccuracy, Plaintiff was denied the
`
`opportunity to work for both Uber and Lyft.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8
`
`57.
`
`From the period of April to July 2020, Plaintiff earned on average $942.37 per month from
`
`Uber alone. This loss of employment for the past few months from both Uber and Lyft has caused
`
`him to suffer financially and has caused him often times not to have enough food to eat.
`
`58.
`
`As a direct result of Defendant’s conduct, actions, and inaction Plaintiff has suffered actual
`
`damages, including but not limited to: loss of job opportunity, emotional distress which includes
`
`many sleepless nights, mental anguish, embarrassment, stress, and time wasted looking for other
`
`employment.
`
`COUNT I
`Checkr’s Violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)
`
` Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though
`
`59.
`
`fully stated herein.
`
`60. In the parlance of the FCRA, background checks are “consumer reports.”
`
`61.
`
` Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), “whenever a consumer reporting agency prepares a
`
`consumer report it shall follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the
`
`information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.”
`
`62.
`
` Checkr violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to establish reasonable procedures to
`
`assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of Plaintiff’s consumer report(s).
`
`63.
`
` Checkr violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to
`
`assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of Plaintiff’s consumer report(s).
`
`64.
`
` Checkr’s failure to employ and/or follow reasonable procedures while preparing
`
`Plaintiff’s information caused Plaintiff to suffer actual damages, including statutory and actual
`
`damages, as described herein.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 9
`
`65.
`
` Checkr’s violations of the FCRA were willful. Therefore, Checkr is individually liable
`
`to Plaintiff for actual, statutory, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1681n.
`
`66.
`
` Alternatively, Checkr’s violations of the FCRA were negligent. Therefore, Checkr is
`
`individually liable to Plaintiff for statutory and actual damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.
`
`67.
`
` In any event, Checkr is liable for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 15
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o.
`
`COUNT II
`Checkr’s Violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681k(a)(2)
`
`68.
`
` Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though
`
`fully stated herein.
`
`69.
`
` Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681k(a)(2) a consumer reporting agency must “maintain strict
`
`procedures designed to ensure that whenever public record information which is likely to have an
`
`adverse effect on a consumer’s ability to obtain employment is reported it is complete and up to
`
`date.”
`
`70.
`
` Checkr failed to ensure that the public record information associated with Plaintiff was
`
`complete and up to date.
`
`71.
`
` Checkr had actual notice that the information they provided was likely to have an
`
`adverse effect on Plaintiff’s ability to obtain employment, as Uber and Lyft were attempting to
`
`purchase this information from Checkr to evaluate Plaintiff for continued or future employment.
`
`72.
`
`Checkr’s failure to maintain complete and up to date records while preparing Plaintiff’s
`
`information caused Plaintiff to suffer actual damages, including statutory and actual damages, as
`
`described herein.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10
`
`73.
`
`Checkr’s violations of the FCRA were willful. Therefore, Checkr is individually liable to
`
`Plaintiff for actual, statutory, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 15
`
`U.S.C. § 1681n.
`
`74.
`
`Alternatively, Checkr’s violations of the FCRA were negligent. Therefore, Checkr is
`
`individually liable to Plaintiff for statutory and actual damages. 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.
`
`75.
`
`In any event, Checkr is liable for Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. 15 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1681n, 1681o.
`
`COUNT III
`Checkr’s Violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681g
`
`64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully
`
`stated herein.
`
`65. 15 U.S.C. § 1681g obligates consumer reporting agencies to supply consumers with all the
`
`information on their file at the time they make a request for it, including the source of that
`
`information.
`
`66. Checkr is liable to Plaintiff under § 1681g for failing to provide Plaintiff with his background
`
`report and all of the information that was the basis of Checkr’s inability to verify his SSN in
`
`response to Plaintiff’s inquiry as to why he could not obtain a copy of his background report.
`
`67. Plaintiff is thus entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s
`
`fees, and costs.
`
`//
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 11
`
`COUNT IV
`Uber’s Violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)
`
`76.
`
` Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though
`
`fully stated herein.
`
`77.
`
` 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3) requires that any person using a consumer report for
`
`employment purposes, prior to taking adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, shall
`
`provide the consumer to whom the report relates: (i) a copy of the report; and (ii) a description in
`
`writing of the rights of the consumer.
`
`78.
`
` Upon information and belief, Uber did not provide Plaintiff with either a copy of his
`
`background report nor a description in writing of his rights.
`
`79.
`
` Uber is liable to Plaintiff for failing to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his background
`
`report and a description in writing of his rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3).
`
`80.
`
` Plaintiff is thus entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages,
`
`attorney’s fees, and costs.
`
`COUNT V
`Lyft’s Violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)
`
`81.
`
` Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the above paragraphs of this Complaint as though
`
`fully stated herein.
`
`82.
`
` 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3) requires that any person using a consumer report for
`
`employment purposes, prior to taking adverse action based in whole or in part on the report, shall
`
`provide the consumer to whom the report relates: (i) a copy of the report; and (ii) a description in
`
`writing of the rights of the consumer.
`
`83.
`
` Upon information and belief, Lyft did not provide Plaintiff with either a copy of his
`
`background report nor a description in writing of his rights.
`
`

`

`Case 1:21-cv-04857 Document 1 Filed 08/27/21 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 12
`
`84.
`
` Lyft is liable to Plaintiff for failing to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his background
`
`report and a description in writing of his rights under 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3).
`
`85.
`
` Plaintiff is thus entitled to actual damages, statutory damages, punitive damages,
`
`attorney’s fees, and costs.
`
`TRIAL BY JURY
`
`86.
`
` Plaintiff is entitled to and hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Donald Buckley, respectfully requests judgment be entered
`
`against Defendants, for the following:
`
`a) Actual damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o;
`
`b) Statutory damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o;
`
`c) Punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n;
`
`d) Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1681n, 1681o;
`
`Any pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as may be allowed under the law; and
`
`Other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`DATED: August 27, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DANIEL COHEN PLLC
`
`/s/ Daniel Cohen
`
`
`Daniel Cohen, NY No. 5481460
`Evan Shalat, NY No. 5839899
`300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor
`Brooklyn, NY 11201
`Telephone: (718) 770-7940
`(718) 715-1750 (fax)
`dcohen@consumerattorneys.com
`eshalat@consumerattorneys.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Donald Buckley
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket