Medical students must take the Hippocratic Oath in an important step to becoming a doctor. One of the most well-known premises of that oath is, “first, do no harm.” That is a good oath for any profession and is certainly something to be considered in background screening.

In Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, a case that bounced from District Court to Circuit Court to Supreme Court and back to Circuit Court, we can see that doing harm can be quite costly to an employer in time and resources.

Spokeo is a people search website that aggregates data from various sources. The information they gather includes contact data, marital status, age, occupation, economic health, and wealth level. After learning that Spokeo had published an allegedly inaccurate report about him, Thomas Robins sued Spokeo in a proposed class action complaint, claiming Spokeo was producing “in-depth” consumer reports in violation of the FCRA. Mr. Robins’ report was “wildly inaccurate” as stated in his claim. The report said he was in his 50s, married with children, and employed in a "professional or technical field." His economic health was listed as "very strong" and Robins' wealth level was listed as "Top 10%." The attorneys for Mr. Robins alleged that the incorrect information harmed his employment prospects and caused "actual harm in the form of anxiety, stress, concern, and/or worry."

The case started in the 9^th District Court, but was dismissed, without prejudice, by that court’s judge because Robins had failed to allege “any actual or imminent harm.” The US Court of Appeals for the 9^th District disagreed. They concluded that Robins’ amended complaint had alleged a sufficient injury, namely Spokeo's “marketing of inaccurate consumer reporting information about” Robins and that the injury was tied to the alleged FCRA violations by Spokeo. You can see that a lot of time and resources were spent going back and forth with this case; however, there were more decisions and changes to be made.

The case made it to the Supreme Court, which remanded the case back to the 9^th District Court as the Supreme Court felt that the analysis by the Circuit court was incomplete. The District Court was tasked with deciding if Mr. Robins was able to show not only were his rights violated, but also that his alleged injuries were “sufficiently concrete.”

The court had to make sure that the injury was not merely procedural. The court did recognize that “some statutory violations, alone, do establish concrete harm.” To that end, the court agreed with Robins’ claim that the FCRA was established by Congress to “protect consumers from the transmission of inaccurate information about them” in consumer reports. The Court agreed that the interests meant to be protected by the FCRA were indeed real and not just procedural.

This is especially important as consumer reports are heavily relied upon for employment decisions, financial applications, and many other financial decisions. In the end, the court found in favor of Robins.

Employers can learn a lot from this case. Spokeo published information that was collected, but not vetted to make sure it applied to Mr. Robins. The company had no authorization from Mr. Robins to search for information and publish a report on him. When you check on your applicants/employees, make sure you “do no harm.” Begin with a fully executed FCRA authorization. Then verify the company you utilize is a reputable consumer reporting agency, especially if you don’t want to be like Spokeo and spend six years in court over an incorrect and improper consumer report.

Sources: caselaw.findlaw.com, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Case No. 11-56843 8/15/17