Hebert

Hebert v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 19, 2022D079038California5,149 words

Opinion

Opinion

INTRODUCTION

Vicki Hebert filed a putative class action against Barnes & Noble, Inc. (Barnes & Noble), alleging it willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.; hereafter, the FCRA, or the Act). The FCRA requires an employer like Barnes & Noble to provide a job applicant like Hebert with a standalone disclosure stating that the employer may obtain the applicant’s consumer report when making a hiring decision. (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681a(h), 1681b(b)(1)(A).) According to Hebert, Barnes & Noble willfully violated the FCRA by providing job applicants with a disclosure that included extraneous language unrelated to the topic of consumer reports. Barnes & Noble filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that no reasonable jury could find its alleged FCRA violation was willful. It asserted it included the extraneous information in its disclosure due to an inadvertent drafting error. The trial court agreed with Barnes & Noble, granted the company’s motion for summary judgment, and entered judgment in the company’s favor. Unlike the trial court, we conclude a reasonable jury could find that Barnes & Noble’s alleged FCRA violation was willful. Based on the evidence…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.