`
`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
`
`