Ria Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc., No. 19-3266 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff commenced a class action, alleging SC Data Center, Inc. (“SC Data”) committed three violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681-1681x. In May 2016, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement. Four days later, the Supreme Court decided Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), which led SC Data to move to dismiss this action for lack of standing. On remand, the district court determined that Plaintiff had standing as to all three claims.
The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court’s orders and held that Plaintiff lacked Article III standing and remanded the matter to the district court with directions to remand the case to state court. The court held that the text of the FCRA nor the legislative history provide support for Plaintiff’s claim that she has a right under the FCRA 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. Further, the court concluded that Plaintiff has not established that she suffered a concrete injury due to the improper disclosure, thus she lacks standing to pursue her improper disclosure or failure to authorize claims.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Fair Credit Reporting Act. For this court's prior decision vacating a settlement agreement and remanding for a determination as to whether plaintiff had standing, see Schumacher v. SC Data Center, Inc., 912 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2019). The district court concluded plaintiff had standing to pursue all of her claims, and defendant appeals. Held: Plaintiff lacked Article III standing, and the district court's order is vacated; the matter is remanded to the district court with directions to remand the case to state court. The court declines to add to the Act a right to explain to a prospective employer negative but accurate information in a consumer report prior to the employer taking an adverse action (here, the withdrawal of a job offer after discovery that plaintiff had failed to disclose prior felonies); while the defendant's action in obtaining the consumer report without first providing plaintiff with a disclosure form that complied with the Act was a technical violation, a technical violation under Sec. 1681b(b)(2)(A), without something more, is insufficient to confer standing; here that something more is a claim of concrete injury due to the improper disclosure, and plaintiff failed to establish such an injury and therefore lacked standing to pursue an improper disclosure claim; plaintiff authorized defendant to obtain a type of consumer report documenting her criminal history; assuming, without deciding that a search of the national sex offender database went beyond the scope of plaintiff's authorization, she cannot establish concrete injury from the violation and lacked standing to pursue a failure to authorize claim. Judge Kelly, concurring.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on April 4, 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.