Thomas Bey v. Checkr Corporation

Background

Zar El Javon-Martise Thomas Bey alleged that Checkr prepared a background report for DoorDash in November 2020 stating that he had been charged with fleeing a police officer in Anoka County, Minnesota. He alleged that DoorDash terminated his contract as a result. He initially asserted a defamation claim, alleging that the report harmed his reputation and business prospects.

Checkr moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Checkr argued that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), a federal law governing consumer reports, preempted the defamation claim. Checkr also argued that the complaint failed to state an FCRA claim because the report was accurate.

Materials Considered

The court considered publicly available court records submitted by Checkr, including records from the Anoka County criminal case. The court did not consider four reports that Thomas Bey submitted with his response because they were not the report described in the complaint and were outside the pleadings. The court stated that those reports would not have changed its analysis even if considered.

Analysis

The court explained that, on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), it generally accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asks whether they plausibly state a claim. The court also gave Thomas Bey’s filings a liberal reading because he was representing himself.

The court stated that an FCRA claim requires a consumer to show initially that a consumer reporting agency prepared a report containing inaccurate information. Thomas Bey argued that the report was wrong because he had never been charged with “Failure to Stop,” but the court found that the criminal docket and his own filings showed that he had been charged with fleeing a police officer. The court also rejected his argument that the report was inaccurate because he had not been convicted: the complaint alleged that the report identified a pending charge, not a conviction.

The court further rejected the argument that Checkr could not report the charge. It explained that the FCRA permits reporting of arrest records, including criminal charges, subject to the statute’s time limits. The court also rejected the alleged malice or intent to injure as a basis for defamation. Under the FCRA’s exception to preemption, the information must be false as well as reported with malice or willful intent to injure; the court found that the reported charge was not false.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Menendez granted Checkr, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss and dismissed the matter with prejudice. The court ordered that judgment be entered.