FCRA Background Check Lawsuit — Golightly v. Uber & Checkr
In Golightly v. Uber Technologies, Inc. & Checkr, Inc. (U.S. District Court, S.D.N.Y., 2021), Uber and its background-check provider Checkr were sued for violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The case marked a major legal milestone for FCRA background check lawsuits involving gig workers. Plaintiff Job Golightly alleged Uber deactivated him after Checkr misclassified a 2013 speeding ticket as a misdemeanor, resulting in loss of income. The complaint asserts that neither Uber nor Checkr provided any of the disclosures, notices, or dispute opportunities required under the FCRA or New York’s Fair Chance Act.
Class Action Complaint – Jury Trial Demanded
Case No.: 1:21-cv-03005
Filed: April 8, 2021
Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
Plaintiff: Job Golightly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Defendants: Uber Technologies, Inc. and Checkr, Inc.
Introduction
Uber, the world’s largest rideshare company, has operated in New York City—its biggest U.S. market—since 2011.
This class action lawsuit challenges Uber’s unlawful use of criminal history to discriminate against its drivers in New York City, and its noncompliance with human rights and fair credit laws.
Checkr, the consumer reporting agency used by Uber for background checks, is alleged to be a willing partner in this unlawful conduct.
Uber’s criminal history discrimination has fueled significant racial disparities both in New York City and nationwide.
With roughly 70% of the on-demand rideshare market, Uber’s practices have a large-scale impact on thousands of workers.
Since its founding, Uber has classified drivers as independent contractors, leaving them without the protections of city, state, and federal civil rights laws.
To close this loophole, the New York City Council amended the NYCHRL (New York City Human Rights Law) in November 2019 to include independent contractors. The amendment took effect on January 11, 2020.
The Fair Chance Act and Racial Justice
The Fair Chance Act, a key component of the NYCHRL, requires employers to evaluate job seekers with criminal histories fairly and individually.
It is a vital tool for promoting racial equity and reducing systemic barriers—since communities of color are disproportionately impacted by criminal history and incarceration.
Plaintiff Job Golightly, a Black resident of the Bronx, has been a TLC-licensed for-hire vehicle driver since 2014, working 50–60 hours weekly and earning approximately $1,500 per week.
In August 2020, Uber used Checkr to run a background check that revealed a 2013 Virginia speeding ticket, classified as a misdemeanor there but not in New York.
A day later, Uber deactivated Mr. Golightly without any notice or process—denying him the ability to earn a living.
Uber’s deactivation decision was made without following the Fair Chance Act procedures, which require:
An individualized analysis under Article 23-A of the New York State Corrections Law,
The provision of documents and disclosures, and
A waiting period for the worker to respond before any action is finalized.
Uber allegedly did none of these things.
Unlawful Actions and Ongoing Discrimination
Months later, after Mr. Golightly complained, Checkr disclosed that Uber had banned him due to the 2013 Virginia misdemeanor.
Uber’s policy of automatically rejecting or deactivating drivers with any criminal record—without individualized review—disproportionately harms Black and Latinx drivers who are more likely to have criminal records due to systemic over-policing.
This conduct:
Violates the Fair Chance Act provisions of the NYCHRL,
Violates the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and
Violates the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act (NY FCRA),
all of which require specific notices, disclosures, and fair processes.
Mr. Golightly received none of the legally required information.
These practices deny drivers their right to correct inaccuracies, challenge unfair actions, and explain context around their records.
Broader Impact
Uber’s and Checkr’s coordinated policies have imposed unlawful barriers to employment that perpetuate racial inequity.
This complaint seeks to hold both companies accountable for:
Violating the NYCHRL,
Violating the FCRA, and
Violating the NY FCRA,
and for failing to uphold the Fair Chance Act’s promise of second chances and equal opportunity.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s FCRA (Fair Credit Reporting Act) claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1681p, which allows such actions to be filed in any court of competent jurisdiction, and under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for federal questions.
The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s NYCHRL (New York City Human Rights Law) and NY FCRA claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial portion of the events and omissions giving rise to these claims occurred here.
At the time of filing, Plaintiff provided copies of this complaint to the New York City Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, satisfying the notice requirement of N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502.
Parties
Plaintiff – Job Golightly
Age: 44
Residence: Bronx County, New York
Background: Black man, long-time licensed TLC (Taxi & Limousine Commission) driver
Criminal History: Single 2013 Virginia misdemeanor speeding violation
Mr. Golightly applied for and received his TLC For-Hire Vehicle (FHV) license in 2014 after passing a background check. He drove for Uber from 2014 through August 27, 2020.
Defendant – Uber Technologies, Inc.
Uber Technologies, Inc. is a California corporation headquartered in San Francisco, with offices in New York City.
Uber conducts extensive business in New York City, engaging tens of thousands of independent-contractor drivers through its rideshare platform.
Defendant – Checkr, Inc.
Checkr, Inc. is also a California corporation, headquartered in San Francisco, conducting regular business in New York City.
Since 2017, Uber has relied on Checkr to run background checks on tens of thousands of New York City drivers and applicants, using the results to determine whether they may access or continue using the Uber platform.
The New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)
The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination across employment, housing, and public accommodations, and protects New Yorkers against retaliation, bias-based harassment, and profiling by law enforcement.
“There is no greater danger to the health, morals, safety and welfare of the city and its inhabitants than the existence of groups prejudiced against one another… including those based on conviction or arrest record.” — N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101
New York City public policy explicitly encourages the employment and licensure of people with criminal records.
Employers are generally forbidden to ask about criminal history until after a conditional job offer has been made.
If an employer seeks to withdraw an offer or terminate employment due to a criminal record, it must:
Provide a Fair Chance Act Notice or an equivalent Article 23-A analysis,
Include a copy of any background check relied upon, and
Allow at least three business days for the individual to respond before final action.
Employers may only deny employment if there is:
A direct relationship between the offense and the job sought, or
An unreasonable risk to property, safety, or welfare of others (N.Y. Corrections Law § 752).
During this individualized analysis, employers must weigh eight statutory factors, including rehabilitation, time since conviction, and the applicant’s age at the time of the offense.
The Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
Under the FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.), before taking any adverse employment action based on a consumer report, an employer must provide the applicant with:
A pre-adverse action notice,
A copy of the report, and
A summary of rights under the FCRA.
After an adverse action, the employer must also give a written notice containing:
The CRA’s contact information,
A statement that the CRA was not the decision-maker,
Information on the applicant’s right to a free second report within 60 days, and
A disclosure of the right to dispute inaccurate or incomplete data.
The FCRA applies broadly to employees, independent contractors, and volunteers alike. Failure to comply with these provisions constitutes a violation.
The New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act (NY FCRA)
Under the NY FCRA (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380 et seq.), a corporation receiving a background report containing criminal information must:
Provide the individual with a copy of Article 23-A of the Correction Law, and
Certify that the information will be used solely for its stated, lawful purpose.
Failure to meet these requirements violates New York state law and deprives workers of notice and process rights afforded by statute.
Overview of Uber and Checkr
Founded in 2009, Uber Technologies, Inc. operates in over 10,000 cities worldwide, offering on-demand transportation through its mobile platform. Uber publicly claims to uphold values of fairness and integrity — “doing the right thing, period, for riders, drivers, and employees.”
In April 2014, Uber implemented a three-step background check process (county, federal, and multi-state).
Between 2014 and 2017, Uber relied exclusively on New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) checks.
By mid-2017, after media scrutiny over driver-related assaults, Uber began using Checkr to run additional criminal history background checks on new and existing drivers.
Checkr, Inc., founded in 2014, is a consumer reporting agency (CRA) that assembles and evaluates background information to produce consumer reports for third parties such as Uber.
Uber uses these reports for employment purposes — i.e., determining whether drivers remain eligible to work or begin work on its platform.
Facts Relating to Plaintiff Job Golightly
Residence: Bronx, New York
Race: Black
Employment: Uber driver (TLC-licensed) from 2014–2020
In September 2013, Mr. Golightly received a speeding ticket in Virginia, exceeding the limit by 22 mph. Under Virginia law, this was classified as a misdemeanor, but under New York law, it would have been merely a civil infraction.
That Virginia offense is the only item on his criminal record.
After passing the TLC’s required background check, Mr. Golightly received his TLC license and began driving for Uber in 2014, averaging 50–60 hours weekly and earning approximately $1,500 per week.
Deactivation and Violation of Due Process
In August 2020, Uber requested that Mr. Golightly consent to a new background check through Checkr, with two options: “Accept” or “Decline.”
He accepted, understanding that refusal would prevent him from accessing Uber’s platform and income.
After Checkr produced the report (including his 2013 misdemeanor), Uber deactivated him within one day, without notice, discussion, or opportunity to respond.
Months later, he learned that the Virginia speeding violation was the sole reason for his deactivation.
Uber’s actions violated multiple laws because it:
Did not conduct the required Article 23-A individualized analysis,
Did not provide a copy of the background report,
Did not give any pre-adverse or adverse action notice, and
Failed to engage in any waiting period allowing him to challenge or explain the information.
Mr. Golightly has still not received:
A copy of his background report,
A written summary of his rights under the FCRA or NY FCRA, or
Any documents required by the Fair Chance Act.
Furthermore, Checkr distributed his consumer report to Uber without ensuring Uber had certified compliance with the FCRA’s legal requirements — an invasion of privacy and violation of federal law.
Racial Disparities and the Fair Chance Act
The Fair Chance Act plays a critical role in reducing employment barriers for individuals with criminal records — a burden that disproportionately affects Black and Latinx individuals.
According to national data:
In 2010, 8% of all U.S. adults had a felony conviction — but among Black men, that rate was 1 in 3.
Black Americans represent 12.6% of the population but 27% of all arrests.
Nearly 60% of incarcerated individuals nationwide are Black or Latinx, despite these groups comprising less than 30% of the U.S. population.
In New York State:
Black residents are 16% of the population but 53% of the incarcerated population.
Latinx residents are 18% of the population but 22% of the incarcerated population.
These disparities mean that any employer (or contractor) using blanket criminal history exclusions inevitably discriminates against people of color.
The Gig Economy Context
In New York City:
Residents are 43% White, 24% Black, and 29% Latinx.
Since 2014, Black residents have made up 48% of arrests, Latinx residents 34%, and White residents only 12%.
The rideshare labor force is similarly racialized and economically vulnerable:
87% of transportation gig workers (Uber/Lyft) are people of color,
81% lack a college degree, and
90% are foreign-born.
By using criminal background checks to automatically exclude drivers with records, Uber’s practices replicate and reinforce systemic racial inequities.
Such policies are neither job-related nor justified by business necessity, and they violate the disparate impact provision of the NYCHRL (§ 8-107(17)).
Class Action Allegations
Overview
Plaintiff Job Golightly brings this action as a proposed class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, representing two distinct classes of affected individuals (collectively referred to as the “Class Members”).
This class includes:
All individuals who, since January 11, 2020:
(i) had their consumer reports obtained by Checkr and used by Uber in connection with driving for Uber in New York City;
(ii) were denied the opportunity to drive for Uber based in whole or in part on criminal history contained in those consumer reports; and
(iii) did not receive:
a pre-adverse action notice,
an adverse action notice,
a copy of their consumer report,
a written description of their rights under FCRA,
a copy of Article 23-A, or
a copy of Uber’s Article 23-A analysis of their criminal history.
Disparate Impact Class
This class includes:
All Black and Latinx individuals who, since January 11, 2020, had their consumer reports used by Uber in connection with driving for Uber in New York City, and were denied the opportunity to drive for Uber based in whole or in part on criminal history information in those reports.
Numerosity and Commonality
The Class Members are so numerous that joinder is impracticable.
There are approximately 80,000 TLC-licensed vehicles in New York City, most operating under the Uber platform.Uber routinely conducts biannual background checks through Checkr for both current and prospective drivers.
Without discovery, Plaintiff estimates:
The Criminal History Discrimination and Notice Class includes at least 1,000 members.
The Disparate Impact Class includes at least 300 members.
Class Members can be identified objectively via Uber’s and Checkr’s internal databases of consumer reports and driver status decisions.
Common Questions of Law and Fact
Legal and factual issues common to all Class Members include:
Whether Uber violated the NYCHRL by failing to conduct individualized Article 23-A analyses before deactivation or denial of driving privileges.
Whether Uber violated the Fair Chance Act by failing to provide written copies of background checks or Fair Chance Act Notices.
Whether Uber violated the FCRA by failing to issue required pre-adverse and adverse action notices and disclosures.
Whether Uber violated the NY FCRA by failing to provide Article 23-A copies to affected drivers.
Whether Checkr violated the FCRA by failing to obtain Uber’s certification of compliance prior to distributing consumer reports.
Whether these violations were willful and systemic.
Whether injunctive, declaratory, statutory, or punitive damages are warranted.
Whether attorney’s fees and costs should be awarded under applicable statutes.
Typicality and Adequacy of Representation
Plaintiff’s claims are typical of both classes he seeks to represent because:
He drove for Uber in New York City.
He is a Black man with a criminal record.
Uber used Checkr to obtain his background report.
Uber took adverse action based on that report.
Uber failed to provide any required notices under the NYCHRL, FCRA, or NY FCRA.
Uber did not perform the legally mandated Article 23-A analysis.
Mr. Golightly suffered the same injuries as other Class Members — loss of income, privacy violations, and denial of due process.
He will fairly and adequately represent both classes, with no conflicts of interest.
His counsel — Mobilization for Justice, Inc. and Towards Justice — are experienced in complex class litigation and will vigorously pursue justice for the affected drivers.
Class Certification
Class certification is appropriate under:
Rule 23(b)(2): Because Uber and Checkr acted (or refused to act) on grounds applicable to all class members, making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.
Rule 23(b)(3): Because common questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues, and a class action is superior for achieving efficiency, consistency, and fairness.
Plaintiff and Class Members seek:
Compliance with NYCHRL, FCRA, and NY FCRA,
Provision of proper notices and Fair Chance Act processes, and
Monetary and injunctive relief to remedy ongoing violations.
Causes of Action
First Claim for Relief
(Uber’s Per Se Violations of the New York City Human Rights Law – NYCHRL)
(Brought by Plaintiff on Behalf of Himself and the Criminal History Discrimination and Notice Class)
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class Members, incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.
Under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(11-a)(b)(i)-(iii), Uber was required — before terminating existing drivers or rejecting applicants based on criminal history — to:
Perform an Article 23-A individualized analysis;
Provide drivers with:
A written copy of their background check;
A written copy of the Article 23-A analysis (Fair Chance Act Notice); and
Keep the position open for at least three business days to allow a response.
Uber did none of these things.
By failing to perform the required process, Uber committed four independent per se violations of the Fair Chance Act provisions of the NYCHRL.
It deactivated Plaintiff and other class members based on criminal history without any of the required steps, depriving them of their rights and livelihoods.
Plaintiff and the class seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, and attorney’s fees.
Second Claim for Relief
(Uber’s Violations of the NYCHRL’s Disparate Impact Provision)
(Brought by Plaintiff on Behalf of Himself and the Disparate Impact Class)
Plaintiff reasserts all preceding allegations.
Under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(17)(a)(1), an unlawful discriminatory practice based on disparate impact is established when a policy results in harm to a protected group.
Uber’s policy of automatically barring drivers with criminal history from its platform, without engaging in the Fair Chance Act process, has a disproportionate racial impact on Black and Latinx individuals, who are statistically more likely to have criminal histories.
Such a policy is not job-related and not consistent with business necessity.
There are less discriminatory alternatives, such as complying with the Fair Chance Act.
As a result, Plaintiff and the class lost income and equal opportunity to work.
They seek injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief, including compensatory damages and attorney’s fees.
Third Claim for Relief
(Uber’s Violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act – FCRA)
(Brought by Plaintiff on Behalf of Himself and the Criminal History Discrimination and Notice Class)
Uber used Checkr consumer reports for “employment purposes” to make decisions about drivers’ eligibility, which qualifies as an adverse action under the FCRA (15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.).
The law requires employers to:
Provide a pre-adverse action notice (including the consumer report and a summary of rights), and
After taking action, provide an adverse action notice with the CRA’s contact details and an explanation of rights to dispute the report.
Uber failed to provide either.
This knowing and reckless violation deprived drivers of the opportunity to:
Verify or correct report inaccuracies,
Explain mitigating circumstances, and
Defend their continued employment.
Uber’s actions were willful, entitling Plaintiff and Class Members to statutory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.
Fourth Claim for Relief
(Uber’s Violations of the New York State Fair Credit Reporting Act – NY FCRA)
(Brought by Plaintiff on Behalf of Himself and the Criminal History Discrimination and Notice Class)
Uber procured background reports from Checkr containing criminal conviction information without providing drivers a copy of Article 23-A of the New York Correction Law, as required by N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-g(d).
Uber’s failure to comply prevented drivers from understanding and exercising their rights to challenge or explain criminal history information.
This conduct constitutes a willful and negligent violation of the NY FCRA.
Uber is liable for actual, punitive, and statutory damages, and attorney’s fees and costs, under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 380-1.
Fifth Claim for Relief
(Checkr’s Violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act – FCRA)
(Brought by Plaintiff on Behalf of Himself and the Criminal History Discrimination and Notice Class)
Checkr, as a Consumer Reporting Agency (CRA), is required by 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(1)(A) to obtain certification from its clients (in this case, Uber) confirming that:
They have complied and will comply with the FCRA’s disclosure obligations, and
They will not use consumer reports in violation of federal or state equal employment opportunity laws.
Checkr failed to obtain these certifications from Uber despite Uber’s known noncompliance with the NYCHRL, FCRA, and NY FCRA.
This failure resulted in the unlawful distribution of Plaintiff’s consumer report, invading his privacy and violating his statutory rights.
Checkr’s conduct was knowing and reckless.
Plaintiff and Class Members therefore seek statutory and punitive damages, plus attorney’s fees, under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n.
Prayer for Relief and Jury Demand
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Job Golightly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, respectfully prays for relief as follows:
Declaratory Judgment:
A declaration that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate the NYCHRL, FCRA, and NY FCRA.Injunctive Relief:
A preliminary and permanent injunction against Uber Technologies, Inc. and Checkr, Inc., and all officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from continuing the unlawful policies and practices set forth in this Complaint.Class Certification:
Certification of this case as a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and/or 23(c)(4).Designation of Class Representatives and Counsel:
Appointment of Plaintiff Job Golightly as representative of both the Criminal History Discrimination and Notice Class and the Disparate Impact Class.
Designation of Plaintiff’s counsel of record as Class Counsel.
Prohibition of Further Unlawful Conduct:
An order forbidding Defendants from continuing any conduct that violates the NYCHRL, FCRA, and NY FCRA.Damages:
An award of actual, real, and statutory damages for Defendants’ willful conduct.
Punitive damages sufficient to deter future misconduct and proportionate to Defendants’ ability to pay.
Attorney’s Fees and Costs:
Payment of all reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs to the extent allowable by law.Interest:
Award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law.Service Award:
Payment of a reasonable service award to Plaintiff, in recognition of his contributions and risks undertaken in representing the Classes.Further Relief:
Such other and further legal and equitable relief, including nominal damages, as the Court deems just, proper, and necessary.
Jury Demand
Plaintiff Job Golightly hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this action.
Dated: New York, New York — April 8, 2021
Respectfully Submitted,
Mobilization for Justice, Inc.
By: /s/ Michael N. Litrownik
Michael N. Litrownik
Carolyn Coffey
100 William Street, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Tel: (212) 417-3858
Fax: (212) 417-3890
Email: mlitrownik@mfjlegal.org
Towards Justice
By: /s/ Juno Turner
Juno Turner
David H. Seligman (pro hac vice pending)
2840 Fairfax Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80207
Tel: (720) 295-8846
Fax: (303) 957-2289
Email: juno@towardsjustice.org
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Classes
Impact of the Background Check Lawsuit on Uber and Checkr
The Golightly v. Uber and Checkr background check lawsuit brought national attention to how major gig economy platforms handle driver screening and compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This case underscored the importance of fair hiring and transparency in automated decision-making systems used by rideshare companies. Following the lawsuit, both Uber Technologies and Checkr faced increased legal scrutiny over their background check procedures and adherence to workers’ rights under the NYCHRL and Fair Chance Act. The litigation prompted broader discussions about accountability in the background screening industry and the role of a skilled background check lawyer in protecting workers against unfair deactivations or employment denials. This case continues to influence how corporations evaluate criminal history data, ensuring that background checks are conducted lawfully, ethically, and without discrimination.