FCRA Background Check Lawsuit: First Advantage Background Services Corp. v. Richard Alexander Williams
Richard Williams filed a lawsuit against First Advantage, a major background screening company, after the company repeatedly mixed up his background check with that of another man named Ricky Williams, who had multiple criminal convictions. This “mixed file” led to Williams losing job offers from Rent-A-Center and Winn-Dixie, despite later proving the reports were inaccurate.
Williams alleged that First Advantage willfully violated the FCRA, which requires consumer reporting agencies to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy” when preparing background reports (15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b)).
Trial and Verdict
A Florida jury found that First Advantage willfully violated the FCRA, awarding:
$250,000 in compensatory damages (for lost wages, emotional distress, and reputational harm).
$3.3 million in punitive damages to punish and deter misconduct.
First Advantage appealed, arguing that:
Williams presented no evidence of reputational harm;
Its actions were not willful under the FCRA; and
The punitive damages were unconstitutionally excessive.
COMPLAINT
(For Violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681, et seq.)
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C. §1681 et seq., to redress and deter systemic violations by First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. (“First Advantage” or “Defendant”).
Plaintiff Richard Alexander Williams (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Williams”) seeks redress for Defendant’s repeated and willful failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy of consumer information, as required by 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b).
Defendant’s conduct resulted in the repeated publication of false criminal records in Plaintiff’s background reports, causing loss of employment opportunities, reputational injury, emotional distress, and other damages.
This action arises from Defendant’s reckless disregard of known errors in its reporting systems and its failure to correct or prevent mixed file incidents involving Plaintiff, despite prior notice.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681p and 28 U.S.C. §1331, as this action arises under the FCRA, a federal statute.
Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as Defendant conducts business in this District and the unlawful practices described herein occurred in substantial part within this jurisdiction.
III. PARTIES
Plaintiff Richard Alexander Williams is a natural person and a “consumer” as defined by 15 U.S.C. §1681a(c). He resides in the State of Florida.
Defendant First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. It is a consumer reporting agency (“CRA”) within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1681a(f).
At all relevant times, Defendant regularly engaged in the business of assembling, evaluating, and furnishing consumer information to third parties, including employers, for employment screening purposes.
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. The Background Checks and Repeated Errors
Plaintiff applied for employment with several companies, including Rent-A-Center and Winn-Dixie, both of which relied on Defendant to conduct pre-employment background checks.
Defendant prepared and sold to those employers consumer reports that falsely stated Plaintiff had been convicted of drug-related and violent crimes.
The records reported by Defendant actually belonged to another individual named Ricky Williams, who shared a similar name but had a different middle name, address, and Social Security Number.
The inclusion of these false criminal records resulted in Plaintiff’s disqualification from employment consideration by both companies.
Plaintiff had no criminal record and had never been convicted of any of the offenses listed in the Defendant’s reports.
In 2012, Plaintiff previously discovered similar false information in a HireRight report and successfully disputed the error.
Despite that notice, Defendant repeated the same mistake in 2013, demonstrating a pattern of systemic noncompliance and disregard for its statutory duties.
B. Defendant’s Procedures and Reckless Conduct
Defendant’s reporting procedures relied primarily on automated database matching using only two identifiers—first and last name and date of birth.
Defendant’s internal policies required the use of a third identifier, such as a full Social Security Number, for common names to prevent false matches.
Defendant ignored its own policy and failed to use this safeguard in Plaintiff’s case, even after prior notice that the same error had occurred.
Defendant’s Vice President of Compliance later admitted that this third-identifier rule was “kind of aspirational,” reflecting a willful disregard for accuracy obligations under the FCRA.
Defendant’s conduct constituted reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights and the requirements of the law.
Plaintiff’s case was not an isolated incident; similar HireRight disputes have been filed nationwide, alleging false or mixed background reports resulting in employment denials.
C. Harm to Plaintiff
As a direct result of Defendant’s misconduct, Plaintiff:
Lost multiple job opportunities, including confirmed offers;
Suffered reputational harm from being labeled a criminal offender;
Experienced emotional distress, insomnia, and anxiety; and
Lost wages and career opportunities.
The psychological and economic damage was compounded by the humiliation of explaining to prospective employers that the reported convictions were not his.
Defendant failed to take corrective action even after Plaintiff filed a HireRight dispute challenging the accuracy of the report.
V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b)
(Failure to Assure Maximum Possible Accuracy)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 25 as though fully set forth herein.
Defendant violated 15 U.S.C. §1681e(b) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy when preparing and furnishing consumer reports about Plaintiff.
Defendant’s reliance on incomplete identifiers and disregard for previously identified errors demonstrate a willful and reckless failure to comply with the FCRA.
Defendant’s conduct directly caused Plaintiff to suffer lost income, emotional distress, embarrassment, and reputational damage.
Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1681n(a), Plaintiff seeks statutory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.
VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of 15 U.S.C. §1681i
(Failure to Reinvestigate Disputed Information)
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 25.
After receiving Plaintiff’s written dispute regarding the false criminal information, Defendant failed to conduct a reasonable reinvestigation as required by the FCRA.
Defendant simply re-verified the same false records without obtaining evidence from the original court or verifying identifying data, in violation of §1681i(a)(1) and §1681i(a)(4).
Defendant’s failure to properly investigate caused continued publication of inaccurate information, prolonging Plaintiff’s harm.
Plaintiff therefore seeks actual, statutory, and punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. §§1681n and 1681o.
VII. WILLFULNESS
Defendant’s violations were willful within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §1681n.
Defendant had prior knowledge of the potential for misidentification errors involving Plaintiff yet failed to implement corrective measures.
Defendant’s corporate officers and management were aware of the risks but chose to prioritize speed and cost efficiency over accuracy and compliance.
Defendant’s disregard for consumer rights under the FCRA warrants punitive damages to punish and deter future violations.
VIII. DAMAGES
Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer actual damages, including:
Lost wages and job opportunities;
Reputational injury and humiliation;
Emotional distress and mental anguish; and
Legal expenses incurred to address Defendant’s misconduct.
Plaintiff seeks statutory damages of up to $1,000 per violation, actual and punitive damages, and recovery of attorney’s fees and costs.
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
A. Declare that Defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §§1681e(b) and 1681i;
B. Award statutory damages pursuant to §1681n(a)(1)(A);
C. Award punitive damages under §1681n(a)(2);
D. Award actual damages pursuant to §1681o(a)(1);
E. Award attorney’s fees, costs, and litigation expenses;
F. Order injunctive relief requiring Defendant to adopt proper verification procedures and reinvestigation protocols; and
G. Grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted,
[Attorney Name]
Counsel for Plaintiff
[Law Firm Name]
[Address]
[City, State ZIP]
[Phone Number]
[Email Address]
DISCLAIMER
This document is a reformatted and rewritten version of a legal complaint based on the publicly available filings in Williams v. First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc., Case No. 17-11447 (11th Cir. 2020).
It is presented for educational and informational purposes only to illustrate the structure and content of a Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) complaint. It is not a filed pleading, legal advice, or a substitute for professional counsel.