Large Retailer Facing Fair Credit Reporting Act Claims

Global retailer Walmart is facing new claims that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by allegedly failing to properly execute the adverse action process.

As alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff applied to work in the defendant’s Hartwell, Georgia location in September 2024. She spoke with the store manager before applying to disclose her criminal history. Following the hiring process, the plaintiff received a job offer and was directed to complete onboarding paperwork. While awaiting her start date for training to begin, the plaintiff found a copy of her background check on the portal, which included the criminal history she had previously self-disclosed. She then claims she was removed from the training schedule and was told by the store manager that “due to the results of the background check, she could not work” for the store.

Based on the alleged facts, the plaintiff claims that the defendant failed to properly follow the required adverse action process, as it did not provide a copy of the consumer report or a copy of the “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” before making an adverse employment decision.

Interestingly, the complaint weaves in rather unique allegations that the defendant lacked an employment purpose for requesting the plaintiff’s consumer report, as it already possessed the “requisite information needed to evaluate” her potential fit for the position due to her prior self-disclosure of criminal history. The complaint also alleges the plaintiff would not have authorized the procurement of a consumer report if she knew the defendant would not comply with the FCRA.

Thus, there are three proposed classes:

• Adverse action class (those who were denied employment but not provided a report and the Summary of Rights)
• Certification class (those who were the subject of reports where defendant “falsely represented” that it would comply with the FCRA)
• Authorization class (those who were the subject of consumer reports where the defendant “exceeded the authorization obtained” from those applicants).

Setting aside some of the more novel arguments woven into the complaint, employers should review this case as another example of plaintiff’s attorneys pursuing alleged violations of the FCRA. Adverse action-related cases are commonplace, so it’s well worth the time and effort to review the adverse action processes in place. Additionally, employers should also consider how they train staff who are involved with the background check process, but also the staff who interact with candidates, including what is advisable for them to share (or not share) as the company works to properly execute the adverse action process.

Hollingsworth v. Walmart Inc., Case 1:25-cv-05274-ELR-JKL, filed September 16, 2025 in the Northern District of Georgia.