Improper Form Of Background Check Disclosure Not Sufficient Injury For Standing

Ever since the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins last year, courts have been struggling to define the contours of standing in "no injury" class actions.  In Fields v. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc. et al., the District of Minnesota recently granted a motion to dismiss a Fair Credit Reporting Act claim in which a plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to provide a compliant background check disclosure.  In doing so, the District Court found that receipt of a disclosure that includes the proper content, but is laid out in an improper form, is not enough to confer standing. 

In Fields, the defendants operated a number of nursing homes and assisted living facilities.  Plaintiff Maxine Fields applied to work for the defendants and filled out a background check authorization form in the process.  The defendants subsequently obtained a background check on Fields, who ended up working for the defendants for fourteen months.