“Even if the court assumes, for the sake of argument, that Target violated the FCRA, it cannot conclude that [the plaintiff] plausibly alleges that such violation was willful,” the Minnesota federal judge wrote in his decision.

The plaintiff’s suit claimed that Target violated the FCRA by including extraneous information—such as a requirement that employees commit to teamwork built around “dedication, trust and above all, honesty,” and a notification that Target has the “right to end your employment at anytime for any reason”—on the company’s background check disclosure and authorization forms, a practice which they believed violated the FCRA’s “stand-alone disclosure” requirement.

Target, in its motion to dismiss the case, claimed that its form consisted “solely” of the disclosure and that any additional details were included to enhance the disclosure in a clear and conspicuous way.

Ultimately, the federal judge approved Target’s motion to dismiss, citing the “less than clear text of the FCRA’s stand-alone disclosure requirement,” in his conclusion that Target did not willfully violate the FCRA based an objective reading of the statute.

Source: Law360.com, 5/12/2016