1. What could and should BGC do differently?

2. What would be Smith’s damages in a case such as this?

On September 11, 2012, Tony Smith (plaintiff) applied for a job as a truck driver with Dart Transit Company through Dart’s student driver training program. Dart ordered a criminal background check on Smith from E-Backgroundchecks.com (BGC). Dart ordered a U.S. One- SEARCH, which is an automated computer search of BGC’s nationwide criminal database programmed to return results instantaneously. U.S. OneSEARCH reports are prepared by matching identifying information provided by the end-users to identifiers contained within the public criminal records in BGC’s database, and BGC’s practice is to report criminal records that match a consumer’s full name and date of birth. Dart supplied the name “Tony Willie Smith,” his date of birth, the state within which he works, and his Social Security number, though the Social Security number was not required. BGC’s system identified six criminal records matching plaintiff’s first and last name and date of birth, and which did not contain any middle name.

BGC returned these records to Dart in a two-step process as well. First, BGC provided Dart with a summary screen showing basic information about each of the matching records. BGC’s system then required Dart to indicate, based on its review of the summary records, whether any records did not match Smith. Dart did not indicate that any of the records supplied by BGC were not a match to Smith and it therefore continued on to the second step of the process, which entailed BGC providing Dart with a detailed view of the criminal records that carried over from another screen. Dart was then able to review each record individually and was required to indicate whether each record would negatively affect plaintiff’s employment. Following this step, BGC then completed and electronically returned the criminal background report to Dart at 4:51 P.M. on September 12, 2012.

Because the report contained public criminal record information, BGC’s system automatically generated a letter to Smith, advising him that BGC had reported public record information to Dart and enclosing a copy of the report, a summary of plaintiff’s rights under the FCRA, and a dispute form. The letter was dated September 12, 2012, and was mailed to Smith, which he admits he received at his home sometime after BGC transmitted the report to Dart. Smith contacted BGC on September 17, 2012, and disputed the contents of the report he had received from Dart. Two days later, on September 19, BGC issued a corrected report removing all of the previously reported criminal records provided on the September 12 report and showing that Smith had no matching criminal records. That same day, BGC e-mailed a notice to Dart, advising Dart that it had updated Smith’s criminal background report. On September 20, 2012, Dart approved plaintiff to begin the training program, which he began on September 25.

Smith filed suit against BGC, alleging that BGC inaccurately reported his criminal history on his consumer report and that in September 2012, he applied for and was denied employment with Dart due to the inaccurate information, which included convictions for possession of a controlled substance by an unregistered person, carrying firearms without a license, and criminal conspiracy. Smith alleged that BGC “continues to publish and disseminate such inaccurate information to other third parties” in violation of the FCRA. …………………..