Ria Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc., No. 19-3266 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff commenced a class-action lawsuit alleging that SC Data Center, Inc. (“SC Data”) committed three violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). The parties reached a settlement agreement. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), SC Data moved to dismiss the action. The plaintiff first alleged that SC Data took an adverse employment action based on her consumer report without first showing her the report. The court reasoned that the right to pre-action explanation to the employer is not unambiguously stated in the statute’s text. Next, the plaintiff asserts that SC Data obtained her consumer report without first obtaining an FCRA compliant disclosure form. The court found that plaintiff has not established that she suffered a concrete injury due to the improper disclosure. Finally, the plaintiff’s last claim asserts that she did not authorize SC Data to obtain a consumer report. She did authorize a company to conduct a criminal background search. The court found that plaintiff has not pleaded any facts demonstrating concrete harm—a prerequisite for Article III standing. As such, she lacks standing to pursue her failure-to-authorize claim. The court vacated the district court's orders.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fair Credit Reporting Act. For the court's prior opinion in the case see Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc., 912 F.3d 1104(8th Cir. 2019) which remanded for a determination as to whether plaintiff had standing to pursue her claims. On remand, the district court concluded plaintiff had standing to pursue her FCRA claims. Held: the district court erred in determining plaintiff had standing to bring the claims, and the case is remanded with directions to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction; neither the text of the Act nor the legislative history provide support for plaintiff's claim that she had a right under the Act to not only receive a copy of her consumer report, but also discuss directly with the employer accurate but negative information within the report prior to the employer taking adverse action, such as rescindment of an offer of employment; a technical violation of the Act does not confer standing to bring a improper disclosure claim; with respect to her claim for a search beyond the scope of her authorization, she had not pleaded any facts demonstrating concrete harm, a prerequisite for Article III standing. Judge Kelly, concurring.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on May 3, 2022.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.