Amazon is busy this time of year. But a recent court filing may leave it busier than usual. A prior Amazon employee claims the retailer violated a handful of background check disclosure-related laws. Narek Melikyan filed a class-action lawsuit, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services, LLC, Amazon Logistics, Inc., and other unnamed defendants in September 2021 alleging, among other things, that the defendants violated the:
- Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
- California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA)
- California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRA)
The initial complaint states that Melikyan was hired as an Amazon Flex delivery driver in October 2019. Melikyan received a copy of his background report in August 2020 from the defendants’ third-party background report provider. He claims ”[D]efendants had procured and/or caused to be procured a background report regarding him without a required disclosure or… based on a non-compliant disclosure form”.
The complaint alleges, among other things, that defendants violated:
1. The FCRA’s consumer report disclosure requirement. Defendants allegedly didn’t give Melikyan and the other plaintiffs “a clear and conspicuous written disclosure…in a document that consists solely of the disclosure” before completing the checks.
2. The FCRA’s investigative consumer report disclosure requirement. Defendants allegedly didn’t provide written disclosures advising “that an investigative consumer report, including information as to their character, general reputation, personal characteristics, and mode of living, may be made.” The complaint alleges that the defendants did not provide plaintiffs with written disclosures within three days of requesting investigative consumer reports regarding them, advising them of their rights to request additional disclosures and a written summary of rights under the FCRA.
3. The ICRAA’s disclosure requirement. Defendants allegedly didn’t give Melikyan and the other plaintiffs “a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing that consisted solely of the disclosure which adequately notified the consumer of the nature and scope of the investigation, and fail[ed] to obtain written authorization each time an investigative consumer report [was] sought and procured with a permissible purpose as required by law.” The complaint further alleges that defendants “procured investigative consumer reports or caused investigative consumer reports to be procured for Plaintiff and ICRAA Class Members without complying with the requirements set forth in 1786.16(a)(2) of the ICRAA.”
4. The CCRA’s disclosure requirement. Defendants allegedly obtained “consumer credit reports,” as that term is defined by California law, without providing written notice that:
- Identifies the specific basis under California law for the use of the report
- Informs the person of the source of the report, and
- Contains a box that the person can check off to receive a copy of the credit report.
Initially filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in November 2021. The case remains pending, and all claims remain allegations at this time. Verified Credentials will continue to monitor this case and attempt to provide updates as they become available.
