Court: LinkedIn Isn’t an Agency When It Comes to Background Screening

A California district court has dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against the business networking site (the full decision inSweet v. LinkedIn Corporation can be found here).

The popular social network was sued last year by job seekers who claimed that LinkedIn’s Reference Searches cost them jobs. The theory of the case was that LinkedIn should be treated like other background screening companies — a theory that was successful against another website, Spokeo.

Case background

Tracee Sweet, the named Plaintiff, had what she thought was a positive interview with a prospective employer. In fact, she later got word that she would be hired. Soon thereafter, the company called her back and said it had changed its mind.

As it turns out, the company had checked some references using LinkedIn’s “References Searches” function. Reference Searches is pretty much what it sounds like — it’s a LinkedIn feature that employers use to track down people with whom an applicant may have worked previously.

Sweet and other similarly situated job seekers filed suit, alleging that the reference feature violated their rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. At the crux of the complaint was the plaintiffs’ argument that LinkedIn was acting as a consumer reporting agency (CRA) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and that Reference Searches were consumer reports.

Last week a California U.S. District Court dismissed the case, finding that the Plaintiffs had not alleged sufficient facts to support a plausible FCRA claim.

Read Full Article Here; http://www.tlnt.com/2015/04/24/court-linkedin-isnt-an-agency-when-it-comes-to-background-screening/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tlnt+%28TLNT%3A+The+Business+of+HR%29