Keefer v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc.

Background

Salnave Keefer applied to work for Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc., and related defendants. During the application process, Ryder gave him a “Background Investigation Disclosure” twice and a separate “Reports Disclosure.” The background-investigation disclosure stated that Ryder could obtain consumer reports from a third-party or consumer reporting agency for employment-related purposes and obtained Keefer’s authorization. The online form included an “Application FAQs” hyperlink, navigation buttons, progress information, and company and application-system logos.

Keefer filed a proposed class action alleging that Ryder failed to make the disclosure required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. The court allowed briefing on whether the disclosures provided to Keefer complied with the relevant statutes. Ryder moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Legal Standard

Summary judgment is proper when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and may not weigh evidence or decide witness credibility.

The FCRA generally requires an employer, before obtaining a consumer report for employment purposes, to provide a clear and conspicuous written disclosure in a document consisting solely of that disclosure and to obtain the applicant’s written authorization. The court explained that “clear” means reasonably understandable and “conspicuous” means readily noticeable. The standalone requirement bars extraneous information, although a concise explanation of what a consumer report is, how it will be obtained, and the employment purposes for which it may be used may be included.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the Background Investigation Disclosure was clear and conspicuous. It rejected Keefer’s arguments that the phrases “third-party agency or consumer reporting agency,” “the Company,” and “appointment and/or contract terms” were unclear. In the context of Keefer’s employment application, the court found the language reasonably understandable. It also rejected the argument that giving Keefer multiple disclosures violated the conspicuousness requirement, finding that the relevant disclosure remained readily noticeable.

The court also held that the Background Investigation Disclosure was a standalone document. It concluded that the company logos and trademarks were not extraneous information. It likewise rejected challenges to the digital form’s progress indicator, “Candidate Forms 1/2” text, “Save & Return Later” and “Submit” buttons, “Application FAQs” hyperlink, and other online-form features. The court found no authority requiring an electronic disclosure to appear on a blank screen without ordinary navigation features, indicators, logos, or hyperlinks.

The court further held that references to a third-party agency, appointment or contract terms, and the types of information that could appear in a consumer report provided permissible explanations of how reports would be obtained and what they could include. Those statements therefore did not violate the standalone-document requirement.

The court noted that the separate Reports Disclosure referred to a “Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,” which Ninth Circuit precedent suggested was extraneous. But because the Background Investigation Disclosure independently satisfied the FCRA, the court stated that it did not need to evaluate the Reports Disclosure to resolve Ryder’s motion.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and close the case.