Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page1 of 18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

TINA WOLFSON, SBN 174806

[email protected]
ROBERT AHDOOT, SBN 172098
[email protected]
THEODORE W. MAYA, SBN 223242
[email protected]
BRADLEY K. KING, SBN 274399
[email protected]
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
1016 Palm Ave.
West Hollywood, California 90069
Tel: 310-474-9111; Fax: 310-474-8585
Counsel for Plaintiff
ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED

10
11
12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
San Francisco Division

14
15
16

ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, individually and on Case No. 14-5200

behalf of all others similarly situated,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

17

Plaintiff,

18

v.

19
20
21

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, LLC;

HIREASE, LLC; and DOES 1-50,
Defendants

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page2 of 18

Plaintiff ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, by and through his counsel, brings this Class Action

1
2

Complaint against UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (Uber); RASIER, LLC (Rasier); HIREASE,

LLC (Hirease); and DOES 1-50 (collectively, Defendants), on behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated, and alleges, upon personal knowledge as to his own actions and his counsels

investigations, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE

6
1.

This class action challenges Defendants widespread violations of the Fair Credit

Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1681-81x (FCRA), in employment background screening. This case

further challenges Defendants widespread violations of related California and Massachusetts laws,

10

including the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Reporting Act (MCRA) M.G.L. c. 93 50 et seq.,

11

and the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA), Cal. Civ. Code 1785.1 et

12

seq.

13
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14
15
16
17

2.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because this action

arises under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681 et seq., which is a federal statute.
3.

The Court also has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

18

1332(d)(2), because the proposed class has more than 100 members, the class contains at least one

19

member of diverse citizenship from Defendants, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

20

4.

The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendant UBER

21

TECHNOLOGIES, INC. has its principal place of business in this District at 800 Market Street, 7th

22

Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102, and Defendant RASIER, LLC has its principal place of business in

23

this District at 1455 Market Street 4th floor, San Francisco, CA, 94103. Defendants are authorized to,

24

and do, conduct substantial business in California.

25

5.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1), because a

26

substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this District in

27

Defendants Uber and Rasiers offices here.

28
29
30
31

1
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page3 of 18

6.

Intradistrict Assignment: Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 3-2(c) a substantial part of the

events or omissions which give rise to the claims occurred in San Francisco County, and it is therefore

appropriate to assign this action to the San Francisco Division.

PARTIES

4
5
6
7

7.

Plaintiff ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED is an individual and a resident of Boston,

Massachusetts.
8.

Defendant UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is a company that conducts business

throughout the United States. Uber is a corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware

with its principal place of business at 800 Market Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.

10

9.

Defendant RASIER, LLC is, on information and belief, a wholly owned subsidiary of

11

Uber. Rasier is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware with its

12

principal place of business at 1455 Market Street 4th floor, San Francisco, CA, 94103.

13

10.

Defendant HIREASE, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of

14

the state of Florida with its principal place of business at 695 S. Bennett St, Southern Pines, NC

15

28387.

16

11.

At all times relevant hereto, Uber and Rasier were users of consumer reports and

17

therefore subject to regulation under 15 U.S.C. 1681b, Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5, and M.G.L. c 93

18

50. Hirease is a producer of such reports subject to regulation under the same laws.

19

12.

Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the defendants sued as DOES

20

1-50, and therefore sues these defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this

21

Complaint when and if the true identities of these DOE defendants are discovered. Plaintiff is

22

informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated as a DOE is

23

responsible in some manner for the acts and occurrences alleged herein, whether such acts or

24

occurrences were committed intentionally, negligently, recklessly or otherwise, and that each said

25

DOE defendant thereby proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiff as herein alleged, and is

26

thus liable for the damages suffered by Plaintiff.

27
28
29
30
31

13.

On information and belief, at all times mentioned herein, each named Defendant and

DOES 1-50 were the employees, agents, or representatives of each other and were acting with the
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page4 of 18

knowledge and consent of each other Defendant and within the purpose and scope of such

employment, agency or representation in doing or failing to do the acts alleged in this Complaint.

Each Defendant has ratified and approved the acts of its agents.
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

4
5

14.

To protect employees, FCRA, CCRAA, and MCRA impose certain strictures on

employers use of consumer background reports as a factor in their decisions to hire, promote,

reassign, or terminate employees. Specifically, the statutes require that an employer first disclose its

intent to use a background report in its hiring decision and must obtain the prospective employees

written authorization to do so, and the employers disclosure must be in a document that consists

10
11
12
13

solely of the disclosure. 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2)(A); see also Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5(a).
15.

Hirease contracts with Uber and Rasier to provide background screening services, and

Uber and Rasier make use of such information in hiring decisions.

16.

Misreported information can and does often lead to grave consequences for the job

14

seeker. Thus, Congress enacted the FCRA to insure consumer information is furnished and used in a

15

manner that is fair and equitable to the consumer . . . 15 U.S.C. 1681(b).

16

17.

Accordingly, under the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3)(A), before taking any adverse

17

employment action based in whole or in part on a consumer report, the employer must provide to the

18

job applicant:

19

a.

A copy of the consumer report;

20

b.

A description in writing of the rights of the consumer under the FCRA; and

21

c.

A reasonable opportunity to dispute the information before rendering the

adverse employment decision.

22
23

18.

The MCRA contains similar strictures, but adds certain language protecting and

24

advising consumers of their rights that employers must include in their notices at the varying stages.

25

See MCRA, M.G.L. c. 93 62.

26

19.

The MCRA also requires that companies such as Hirease provide a copy of any

27

consumer report procured by Uber or Raiser to Plaintiff and to other similarly situated applicants or

28

employee at the time it provides any such report to Uber or Rasier. M.G.L. c. 93 60.

29
30
31

3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page5 of 18

20.

Similarly, the CCRAA requires that: Prior to requesting a consumer credit report for

employment purposes, the user of the report shall provide written notice to the person involved. The

notice shall inform the person that a report will be used, and shall identify the specific basis under

subdivision (a) of Section 1024.5 of the Labor Code for use of the report. The notice shall also inform

the person of the source of the report, and shall contain a box that the person may check off to receive

a copy of the credit report. If the consumer indicates that he or she wishes to receive a copy of the

report, the user shall request that a copy be provided to the person when the user requests its copy

from the credit reporting agency. The report to the user and to the subject person shall be provided

contemporaneously and at no charge to the subject person. Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20(a)

10

21.

The FCRA also requires that, after any adverse action occurs, the employee or job

11

applicant must receive a second notice, mandated by 15 U.S.C. 1681m(a). (Hereinafter, the pre-

12

adverse action notice and the adverse action notice.)

13

22.

The pre-adverse action notice requirement is unqualified. Employers must comply

14

with the pre-adverse action disclosure requirement even where the information contained in the

15

consumer report (such as a criminal record) would automatically disqualify the individual from

16

employment or lead to an adverse employment action. FTC, 40 years of Experience with the Fair

17

Credit Reporting Act (July 2011) p. 53.

18

23.

The FCRA further requires that before any consumer reporting agency may provide

19

consumer reports on an applicant, the reporting agency must obtain a certification from the employer

20

that the employer has given the required pre-adverse action disclosure and will give the required

21

adverse action notice, if required (i.e., the employer ultimately takes an adverse employment action).

22

15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(1)(A).

23

24.

The Federal Trade Commission has issued guidance that when an employer enters into

24

a bona fide independent contractor relationship with an individual, it must comply with the applicable

25

provisions of the FCRA pertaining to consumer reports obtained for employment practices. FTC,

26

Advisory Opinion to Allison (02-23-98) available at www.http://www.ftc.gov/policy/advisory-

27

opinions/advisory-opinion-allison-02-23-98 (last viewed Oct. 25, 2014).

28
29
30
31

4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page6 of 18

1
2
3

25.

Uber and Rasier are employers and are users of consumer reports for the purposes

of the FCRA and therefore are regulated entities under the FCRA.
26.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Uber and Rasier knowingly,

voluntarily, and with the assistance of its counsel, executed a certification providing that it would

comply with various provisions of the FCRA, including by providing the required pre-adverse and

adverse action notices.

27.

Despite its certification, Defendants knowingly violated 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3) and

15 U.S.C. 1681m(a) and similar California and Massachusetts law by failing to provide job

applicants and employees with compliant pre-adverse action notices and adverse action notices in

10

accordance with state and Federal law.

Plaintiffs Experience

11
12
13

28.

After previously working for Uber as an Uber Black driver, Plaintiff applied to Uber

for employment as an Uber X driver using his own car.

14

29.

Plaintiff was told he needed to get a new car for the position.

15

30.

Plaintiff therefore purchased a new car at a cost of approximately $25,000, in late

16

September of 2014.

17

31.

18

own car.

19

32.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

In early October 2014, Plaintiff in fact began working as an Uber X driver using his

Thereafter, on or about October 28, 2014, Plaintiff received an email from

[email protected] stating, inter alia:

In reference to your proposal to enter an independent contractor relationship, Rasier
Boston, MA regrets to inform you that they are unable to further consider your proposal
at this time. The decision, in part, is the result of information obtained through the
Consumer Reporting Agency identified below.
33.

At approximately the same time, Plaintiffs access to the Uber app on his phone, which

previously enabled him to work as an Uber driver, was turned off.

34.

While the above-referenced October 28 email also stated indicates that, [i]n

27

accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Plaintiff had previously received a copy of this

28

information and a copy of [his] rights under the Act, Plaintiff did not receive such materials.

29
30
31

5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page7 of 18

35.

Plaintiff was deprived of any meaningful opportunity to review the information in the

consumer report and discuss it with Defendants before they made the decision not to hire him,

including because the above-referenced email came at 1:26 a.m., and because Plaintiff never received

any pre-adverse action notice. Defendants did not give meaningful consideration to Plaintiffs

position on any such matter.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

36.

Plaintiff never received a compliant pre-adverse action notice either from Uber, Rasier,

Hirease or any other party contracted by Ubern or Rasier to provide such notice.
37.

On information and belief, Defendants terminated Plaintiff because Hireases consumer

report concerning Plaintiff indicated he had a minor criminal record that, in fact, stems from his seven
children receiving much-needed Medicaid benefits.
38.

Defendants termination of Plaintiff deprived him of his livelihood and left him without

an alternative means of providing for his family, including his seven children.
39.

Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with a copy of any Criminal Offender Record

14

Information (CORI), nor with any CORI or other background check policy. See M.G.L. c. 6

15

171A.

16

40.

17

correcting a criminal record.

Defendants Acted Willfully

18
19

Defendants did not provide Plaintiff with information regarding the process for

41.

Defendants knew or should have known their duties under M.G.L. c. 93 50 et seq. to

20

maintain a CORI policy and to provide a copy of such policy to Plaintiff upon an adverse employment

21

decision.

22

42.

Defendants knew or should have known their duties under the FCRA to provide pre-

23

adverse and adverse action notices compliant with 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3) and 15 U.S.C. 1681m(a).

24

Nevertheless, Defendants intentionally, recklessly, or grossly negligently failed to provide the same to

25

Plaintiff.

26

43.

Defendants knew or should have known their duties to include in the adverse action

27

notice the statutorily-prescribed language under M.G.L. c. 93 62 requiring the Defendants to inform

28

the consumer of his rights in substantially the manner mandated by the statute.

29
30
31

6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page8 of 18

44.

Defendants knew or should have known their duties to provide pre-adverse action

notices in compliance with Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5(a), but intentionally, recklessly, or grossly

negligently failed to provide the same to Plaintiff.

45.

During the relevant period, Hirease provided and continues to provide consumer reports

to Uber and Rasier under a service agreement. On information and belief, under the service agreement,

Uber and Rasier certified to Hirease that they would comply with the FCRA, including provisions

specifically and directly relating to their duties to provide pre-adverse action and adverse action

notices to its job applicants and employees.

46.

On information and belief, Defendants Uber and Rasier knowingly, voluntarily, and

10

with the assistance of counsel signed the service agreement including the above-mentioned

11

certification.

12

47.

In direct violation of the FCRA, CCRAA, and MCRA, whenever adverse action is

13

taken against an applicant on the basis of information disclosed on a consumer report, Defendants fail

14

to afford the applicants the procedural safeguards mandated by law as described above, including by

15

failing to provide pre-adverse action notices and a reasonable opportunity to dispute information in

16

such reports before taking adverse action.

17

48.

On information and belief, among its service offerings, Hirease provides a package of

18

services which purport to assist the employer in complying with the FCRA by automatically

19

generating and emailing pre-adverse action and adverse action notices to the consumer along with a

20

copy of the consumer report under the employers letterhead whenever there has been an adverse

21

action adjudication by Hirease based on pre-determined criteria supplied by Uber and Rasier.

22

49.

Consumer reporting agencies routinely provide a similar service and many employers

23

purchase it. Uber and Rasier could have easily and cost-effectively complied with the mandates of the

24

FCRA, CCRAA, and MCRA by purchasing such services, but failed to do so.

25

50.

Uber knew or had reason to know that its conduct was inconsistent with published FTC

26

guidance interpreting the FCRA and the plain language of the statute as applicable to independent

27

contractors. Advisory Opinion to Allison (02-23-98) available at <http://www.ftc.gov/policy/advisory-

28

opinions/advisory-opinion-allison-02-23-98> (last viewed November 19, 2014).

29
30
31

7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page9 of 18

Defendants Application Process

1
2
3
4

51.

Defendants accept applications for employment as drivers via their website at

<partners.uber.com/drive>.
52.

In the course of its application, Uber presents drivers with the provision By signing

up, I agree to the Privacy Policy and understand that Uber is a request tool, not a transportation

carrier. <https://partners.uber.com/signup/boston/p2p/>.

7
8
9

53.

Ubers application process comprises three steps. Step One requires that the applicant

Complete the FREE online background check: http://t.uber.com/bosxbc.

54.

The document contains language purporting to grant Defendants authorization on an

10

ongoing and continual basis to access and reaccess consumer reports at any time without further

11

authorization of the applicant.

12

55.

Step Two of the application process requires that the applicant upload certain personal

13

information such as a drivers license, car registration, personal insurance documentation, and

14

information about the applicants vehicle.

15

56.

Step Three requires that the applicant complete a 20-minute online quiz.

16
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

17
18
19

57.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and

23(b)(3) on behalf of himself and Classes initially defined as follows:

20
21

a.

Nationwide FCRA Disclosure Class: All persons in the United States who applied for

22

employment with, or were employed by, Defendants Uber and/or Rasier on or after

23

November 24, 2009, and concerning whom Defendants procured a consumer report

24

and who: (1) received no disclosure regarding the possibility of consumer report

25

procurement; or (2) received a disclosure regarding the possibility of consumer report

26

procurement that was not contained in a document consisting solely of such

27

disclosure.

28
29
30
31

8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page10 of 18

b.

Nationwide FCRA Adverse Action Class: All persons in the United States who (1)

were subject to adverse employment action on or after November 24, 2009 based in

whole or in part on any consumer report procured by Defendants Uber and/or Rasier;

and (2) to whom Defendants did not provide the written materials required under 15

U.S.C. 1681b(b)(3) prior to Defendants taking such adverse employment action.

6
7

c.

Nationwide CCRAA Class: All persons in the United States who (1) applied for

employment with, or were employed by, Defendants Uber and/or Rasier on or after

November 24, 2012; (2) who were the subject of a consumer report procured by

10

Defendant; and (3) who were not provided with prior notice meeting the requirements

11

of Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5(a).

12
13

d.

Massachusetts MCRA Class: All persons in Massachusetts who applied for

14

employment with, or were employed by, Defendants Uber and/or Rasier on or after

15

November 24, 2012, and (1) received an adverse action notice failing to inform them

16

of their rights as required under M.G.L. c. 93 62; and/or (2) did not receive a copy

17

of the consumer report(s) on which Defendants relied to take adverse action, as

18

required by M.G.L. c. 93 60

19
20

e.

Massachusetts CORI Class: All persons in Massachusetts against whom Defendants

21

Uber and/or Rasier took adverse employment action on or after _____, 2012, and

22

about whom Defendants procured Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI)

23

and (1) to whom such CORI was not provided; (2) to whom no CORI policy was

24

provided; and/or (3) to whom no information was provided concerning the process for

25

correcting a criminal record.

26
27
28
29
30
31

58.

Excluded from each of the above Classes are Defendants, including any entity in which

Defendants have a controlling interest, is a parent or subsidiary, or which is controlled by Defendants,

9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page11 of 18

as well as the officers, directors, affiliates, legal representatives, predecessors, successors, and assigns

of Defendants. Also excluded are the judges and court personnel in this case and any members of their

immediate families.

4
5
6

59.

Plaintiff reserves the right to amend or modify the Class definitions with greater

specificity or division into subclasses after having had an opportunity to conduct discovery.
60.

Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Each Class is so numerous that joinder of all

members is unfeasible. The precise number of members of each Class cannot be determined without

discovery, but clearly each has numerous members.

61.

Commonality and Predominance. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). There are

10

questions of law and fact common to each Class, which predominate over any questions affecting

11

only individual members of each respective Class. These common questions of law and fact include,

12

without limitation:

13

d.

Whether Defendants conduct described herein violated the FCRA;

14

e.

Whether Defendants procured or caused to be procured consumer reports to

investigate prospective and/or current employees;

15
16

f.

Whether Defendants Uber and Rasier violated the FCRA by failing to provide notice

17

to members of the FCRA Classes with a clear and conspicuous disclosure that

18

Defendants would procure a consumer report for employment purposes,

19

g.

disclosure;

20
21

h.

Whether Defendants procured the written authorization of Plaintiff and other Class
members prior to obtaining consumer reports concerning them;

22
23

Whether Defendants provide such disclosure in a document that consists solely of that

i.

Whether Defendants have taken adverse employment action based upon information

24

contained within an applicants or employees consumer report without providing a

25

copy of such report to the applicant or employee;

26

j.

Whether Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiff and other

27

putative Class members, prior to taking adverse action, with notice that adverse action

28

would be taken in whole or in part based on a consumer report;

29
30
31

10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page12 of 18

k.

Whether Defendants have taken adverse employment action based upon information

contained within an applicants or employees consumer report without providing the

applicant or employee with a written description of their rights under 15 U.S.C.

1681;

l.

Whether Defendants violated the CCRAA;

m.

Whether Defendants violated the MCRA;

n.

Whether Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless disregard of their obligations and

the rights of Plaintiff and other Class members under the FCRA, the CCRAA, and/or

the MCRA; and

10

o.

members are entitled.

11
12

The nature of the relief, including equitable relief, to which Plaintiff and other Class

62.

Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the

13

Classes he seeks to represent. Plaintiff and all Class members were exposed to uniform practices and

14

sustained injuries arising out of and caused by Defendants unlawful conduct.

15

63.

Adequacy of Representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiff will fairly and

16

adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Classes. Further, Plaintiffs

17

counsel is competent and experienced in litigating class actions.

18

64.

Superiority of Class Action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action is superior to

19

other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this action since joinder of all Class

20

members is impracticable and will waste judicial resources. Moreover, the adjudication of this

21

controversy through a class action will avoid the possibility of inconsistent and potentially conflicting

22

outcomes. Finally, there will be no difficulty in managing this action as a class action.

23

65.

Injunctive and Declaratory Relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Defendants actions have

24

been uniform as to all members of each Class. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that

25

apply generally to each Class, so that final injunctive relief or declaratory relief is appropriate with

26

respect to each Class as a whole.

27
28
29
30
31

11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page13 of 18

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1
2

Violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. 1681b(b)

(Against Uber and Rasier on behalf of Plaintiff and the FCRA Classes)

66.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs.

67.

Defendants used a consumer report, as defined by the FCRA, to take adverse

6
7

employment action against Plaintiff and other members of the putative FCRA Classes.
68.

Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to acquire from Plaintiff and Class members

proper authorization prior to conducting the background check and/or did not utilize an authorization

with the requisite statutory requirements.

10

69.

Defendants violated the FCRA by failing to provide notice to Plaintiff and other Class

11

members with a conspicuous disclosure that Defendants would procure a consumer report for

12

employment purposes, in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, as required by 15 U.S.C.

13

1681b(b)(2)(A).

14

70.

Defendants further violated the FCRA by failing to provide Plaintiff and other

15

putative Class members, prior to taking adverse action, with notice that adverse action would be

16

taken in whole or in part based on a consumer report.

17

71.

Defendants violated the FCRA by taking adverse employment action based upon

18

information contained within applicants and/or employees consumer reports without providing

19

copies of such report to the applicants or employees.

20

72.

The foregoing violations were willful. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless

21

disregard of their obligations and the rights of Plaintiff and other Class members under 15 U.S.C.

22

1681b(b)(3)(A). The willfulness of Defendants conduct is reflected by, among other things, the

23

following facts:

24

a.

Based on the plain language of the statute, legal advice provided by its own general

25

counsel, or outside employment counsel, and published FTC guidance, Defendants

26

knew or should have known that its failure to provide compliant pre-adverse actions

27

notice was unlawful;

28
29
30
31

12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page14 of 18

b.

Based on published FTC guidance, Defendants knew or should have known that its

choice to consider itself exempt from the provisions of the FCRA because they

believe themselves to utilize independent contractors and not employees was

unlawful;

c.

Defendants could have complied with the statutory duty to provide a pre-adverse

action notice either by sending the notice directly to the affected consumer job

applicant, or by contracting with Hirease to do so on its behalf;

d.

so, Defendants failed to adopt any measure or mechanism which would have provided

the required notice to Plaintiff and the Class.

10
11

Despite the clear notice of the law, full ability to comply, and ample opportunity to do

73.

Plaintiff and other members of the FCRA Classes are entitled to actual damages or

12

statutory damages of not less than $100.00 and not more than $1,000.00 for each and every one of

13

these violations, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(1)(A).

14
15

74.

Plaintiff and other members of the FCRA Classes are entitled to recover their costs

and attorneys fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a)(3).

16
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

17
18

Violation of the CCRAA, Cal. Civ. Code 1785.1 et seq.

19

(Against Uber and Rasier by Plaintiff and the CCRAA Class)

20

75.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs.

21

76.

Defendants used a consumer credit report as defined in Cal. Civ. Code 1785.3 to

22
23

take adverse employment action against Plaintiff and other members of the CCRAA Class.
77.

Defendants violated the CCRAA by failing to provide written notice to Plaintiff and

24

other members of the CCRAA Class, prior to requesting such consumer credit reports, that complied

25

with Cal. Civ. Code 1785.20.5 by informing Plaintiff and other members of the CCRAA Class of the

26

specific basis under subdivision (a) of Section 1024.5 of the Labor Code for use of the reports,

27

informing them of the source of the reports, and including a box that such persons could check off to

28

receive copies of such reports.

29
30
31

13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page15 of 18

1
2

78.

disregard of their obligations and the rights of Plaintiff and other Class members under the CCRAA.

79.

a.

Plaintiff and other members of the CCRAA Class are entitled to:
Any actual damages sustained by Plaintiff and other Class members as a result of the
failure;

5
6

The foregoing violations were willful. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless

b.

Punitive damages of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five
thousand dollars ($5,000) for each violation as the Court deems proper;

7
8

c.

Injunctive relief requiring Defendants to comply with the FCRA and CCRAA; and

d.

Costs and reasonable attorneys fees.

10
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

11

Violation of the MCRA M.G.L c. 93 50 et seq.

12

(Against all Defendants by Plaintiff and the Massachusetts MCRA Class)

13
14

80.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs.

15

81.

Defendants used a consumer report as defined by the MCRA to take adverse

16
17

employment action against Plaintiff and other members of the Putative Class.
82.

Defendants violated the MCRA by failing to advise Plaintiff and the Members of the

18

MCRA Class of the statutorily required rights in M.G.L. c. 93 62 in their adverse action notice,

19

including the right to assistance interpreting consumer reports.

20
21
22

83.

Hirease failed to deliver a copy of the Report to Plaintiff and other members of the

MCRA Class as required by M.G.L. c. 93 60.

84.

The foregoing violations were willful. Defendants acted in deliberate or reckless

23

disregard of their obligations and the rights of Plaintiff and other Class members under M.G.L. c. 93

24

50 et seq.

25

85.

26

a.

29
30
31

Any actual damages sustained by Plaintiff and other Class members as a result of the
failure;

27
28

Plaintiff and the MCRA Class Members are entitled to:

b.

Such amount of punitive damages as the court may allow;

14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page16 of 18

c.

court; and

2
3

The costs of this action together with reasonable attorneys fees as determined by the

d.

Treble damages and attorney fees pursuant to M.G.L. c.93 68, which incorporates
M.G.L. c.93A 2 and 11.

4
5
6

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of Massachusetts CORI Requirements, M.G.L. c. 6 171A et seq.

(Against Uber and Rasier by Plaintiff and the Massachusetts CORI Class)

86.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges the preceding paragraphs.

10

87.

On information and belief, Defendants Uber and Raiser annually conduct 5 or more

11

criminal background investigations, and therefore are required to maintain a written criminal

12

offender record information policy providing that . . . [they] will: (i) notify the applicant of the

13

potential adverse decision based on the criminal offender record information; (ii) provide a copy of

14

the criminal offender record information and the policy to the applicant; and (iii) provide information

15

concerning the process for correcting a criminal record. M.G.L. c.6 171A.

16
17
18
19
20

88.

Defendants Uber and Rasier violated Massachusetts law by failing to maintain and to

provide a CORI policy.

89.

Defendants Uber and Rasier violated Massachusetts law by failing to provide to

applicants information concerning the process for correcting a criminal record.

90.

Defendants Uber and Rasier violated Massachusetts law by failing to provide Plaintiff

21

and other members of the CORI Class with CORI in Defendants possession on which they relied to

22

take adverse employment actions against Plaintiff and other members of the CORI Class.

23

91.

24

a.

b.

29
30
31

exemplary damages of not less than one hundred and not more than one thousand
dollars for each violation; and

27
28

Any actual damages sustained by Plaintiff and other Class members as a result of
Defendants failures;

25
26

Plaintiff and the CORI Class Members are entitled to:

c.

costs and reasonable attorneys fees.

15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page17 of 18

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and Class members, prays for relief as follows:

A.

For an order that this action may be maintained as a class action under Rule 23 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that each of the above-described classes be certified, that

Plaintiff be appointed Class representative, and that Plaintiffs counsel be appointed as counsel for the

Class;
B.

6
7

determined at trial;
C.

8
9

For an order requiring Defendants to pay actual damages in an amount to be

For an award of statutory damages on the First Cause of Action in an amount not

less than $100 and not more than $1,000 per violation;
D.

10

For an award of punitive damages of not less than $100 nor more than $5,000 per

11

violation on the Second Cause of Action, and in an amount to be determined at trial on the Third

12

Cause of Action;

13

E.

14

For an award of exemplary damages in an amount of not less than $100 and not

more than $1,000 per violation on the Fourth Cause of Action;

F.

15

For an order prohibiting Defendant from engaging in the misconduct described

16

herein and requiring Defendants to provide proper disclosures and information as required under 15

17

U.S.C. 1681b(b)(2) and 1681b(b)(3) and under the CCRAA and MCRA;

18

G.

For an award of attorneys fees;

19

H.

For an award of the costs of suit incurred herein, including expert witness fees;

20

I.

For an award of interest, including prejudgment interest, at the legal rate; and

21

J.

For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

22

///

23
24

///

25
26

///

27
28
29
30
31

///
16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200

Case3:14-cv-05200 Document1 Filed11/24/14 Page18 of 18

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1
2

Plaintiff demands trial by jury of all claims so triable.

3
4
5

Dated: November 24, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Tina Wolfson
Robert Ahdoot
Theodore W. Maya
Bradley K. King
16 Palm Ave.,
West Hollywood, California 90069
Tel: 310-474-9111
Facsimile: 310-474-8585
Counsel for Plaintiff
ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31

17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT, NO. 14-5200