FCRA Background Check Lawsuit — TWUMASI-ANKRAH v. Checkr, Inc.

In this landmark background check error case, Uber driver Christopher Twumasi-Ankrah sued Checkr after losing his job due to a false background report. Checkr listed three car accidents on his record but failed to clarify that he wasn’t at fault in two of them.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that even technically accurate data can violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) if it’s misleading or incomplete. The Court held that Checkr’s omission turned the report into a background check mistake, emphasizing that accuracy under the FCRA means more than literal truth — it requires context and fairness in reporting.

This decision set an important precedent for holding background check companies accountable for false or misleading reports that harm workers and job applicants.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

Case Information

Case Name: Christopher Twumasi-Ankrah v. Checkr, Inc.
Case No.: 19-3771
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Originating Court: Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland — No. 1:19-cv-00204, Hon. Donald C. Nugent, District Judge
Decision Date: April 2, 2020
Panel: Judges MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and BUSH

Attorneys

For Appellant: Sergei Lemberg, Lemberg Law LLC, Wilton, Connecticut
For Appellee: Cindy D. Hanson and Sean T. H. Dutton, Troutman Sanders LLP, Atlanta & Chicago

Opinion Authors

• MOORE, J. — Opinion of the Court

• KETHLEDGE, J. — Concurring Opinion (p. 12)

• BUSH, J. — Dissenting Opinion (pp. 13–16)

OPINION

Judge Karen Nelson Moore delivered the opinion of the Court

Christopher Twumasi-Ankrah brings this Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) case against Checkr, Inc., alleging that Checkr’s careless reporting of state car-accident data cost him his job as an Uber driver.

The district court dismissed Twumasi-Ankrah’s claim, holding that he failed to satisfy what it viewed as the controlling FCRA legal standard. The Sixth Circuit, however, held that the district court applied a standard inconsistent with the statute’s text.

Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the lower court’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background

Factual Allegations and Procedural History

Because this appeal arises at the motion-to-dismiss stage, the Court accepts the facts alleged in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Bickerstaff v. Lucarelli, 830 F.3d 388, 396 (6th Cir. 2016).

Twumasi-Ankrah was an Uber driver. Checkr is a consumer reporting agency (CRA) as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(f), assembling consumer information for the purpose of furnishing consumer reports to third parties, including employers under § 1681b(a)(3)(B).

At Uber’s request, Checkr performed a background check on Twumasi-Ankrah by obtaining records from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV). The BMV reported that he had been involved in three “accidents” on:

1. October 23, 2015

2. December 19, 2015

3. February 10, 2017

No further details were provided.

Reporting Conduct

Checkr forwarded this information to Uber without any further investigation, despite knowing that the BMV lists all accidents regardless of fault.

“The BMV includes in its driving history abstracts all accidents that a driver is involved in, regardless of fault.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 11)

The relevant section of Checkr’s report simply listed the three accident dates and jurisdictions.

Termination by Uber

Uber terminated Twumasi-Ankrah shortly after receiving Checkr’s report, allegedly assuming he was at fault in each accident.
The complaint states it is reasonable for Uber to rely on a CRA report indicating “accident involvement” as implying fault.

Upon reviewing the report, Twumasi-Ankrah discovered that two of the three accidents were not his fault. He supplied Checkr with supporting documents:

• A court record finding him “not guilty” in the 2015 incident.

• A police report identifying him as the victim in a 2017 hit-and-run.

Nevertheless, Checkr refused to amend or supplement its report after receiving this documentation.

FCRA Claim

Twumasi-Ankrah sued Checkr under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), which requires CRAs to “follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy.”

He alleged that Checkr failed to verify whether the accident data it reported was complete or contextually accurate, producing a record so misleading as to be inaccurate and causing Uber to wrongly conclude he was a negligent driver.

II. LEGAL STANDARD AND ANALYSIS

A. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and Accuracy Obligations

Under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b), consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”) such as Checkr are required to:

“follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual about whom the report relates.”

This provision serves a dual purpose:

1. To protect consumers from inaccuracies in credit and employment-related reporting; and

2. To impose accountability on CRAs that disseminate incomplete, misleading, or false data.

A CRA violates § 1681e(b) when it prepares or furnishes a report containing information that is either factually inaccurate or materially misleading, and the inaccuracy results from a failure to employ reasonable verification procedures.

B. The District Court’s Holding

The district court dismissed Twumasi-Ankrah’s complaint, concluding that he had failed to allege factual “inaccuracy.”

The lower court interpreted § 1681e(b) narrowly—requiring the plaintiff to show that the information Checkr reported was factually false, not merely incomplete or misleading.
Because the BMV data technically recorded that Twumasi-Ankrah had “been involved” in three accidents, the court found no factual error, even if Uber misinterpreted the report.

C. The Sixth Circuit’s Clarification

The Sixth Circuit rejected this narrow approach.
It held that the district court’s standard conflicted with the plain text and purpose of the FCRA, emphasizing that the statute protects consumers from both false and misleading information.

The Court stated:

“A report can be inaccurate within the meaning of § 1681e(b) not only when it is patently incorrect but also when it is misleading in such a way and to such an extent that it can be expected to adversely affect credit decisions.”

In other words, even technically true statements may be inaccurate under the FCRA if they create a materially misleading impression about the consumer.

D. Application to Checkr’s Report

Checkr’s report stated that Twumasi-Ankrah had been involved in three accidents without indicating whether he was at fault.
Given that Uber used these reports to assess driver safety and reliability, the omission of context (fault or disposition) could reasonably lead Uber to assume Twumasi-Ankrah caused multiple accidents.

The Court concluded that this type of reporting could be so misleading as to be inaccurate under § 1681e(b).

Because Checkr allegedly knew that Ohio’s BMV lists accidents regardless of fault, yet failed to include clarifying language, Twumasi-Ankrah had plausibly alleged that Checkr did not follow reasonable procedures to ensure maximum accuracy.

E. Plausibility of the Claim

At the pleading stage, Twumasi-Ankrah’s allegations were sufficient to establish a plausible FCRA violation.
He claimed:

• The report was incomplete and misleading;

• Checkr had knowledge of this tendency;

• Checkr failed to verify or contextualize the accident data; and

• Uber’s reliance on the misleading report led directly to his termination.

The Court thus reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.

III. DISCUSSION ON REASONABLE PROCEDURES

A. The Standard for “Reasonable Procedures” Under §1681e(b)

The Fair Credit Reporting Act does not define “reasonable procedures,” but courts interpret this standard to require that a consumer reporting agency (CRA) take steps that a reasonably prudent agency would take to assure maximum possible accuracy when reporting consumer information.

The Sixth Circuit emphasized that “maximum possible accuracy” sets a high bar—it demands more than mere technical correctness.
A CRA’s responsibility includes contextual accuracy and avoidance of misleading omissions that can harm consumers.

“It is not enough that the information be factually true if the manner of presentation creates a misleading impression likely to cause adverse decisions.”

The Court reiterated that Checkr had both the means and knowledge to verify whether the BMV accident data required clarification about fault or responsibility.
By omitting this, Checkr arguably failed to use reasonable procedures.

B. The Plausibility of Procedural Failure

The complaint alleged that Checkr:

1. Was aware that Ohio’s BMV lists all accidents without fault indicators.

2. Knew that Uber uses accident history to evaluate driver safety and eligibility.

3. Did not add disclaimers, notes, or context to clarify that “accident involvement” does not imply fault.

These facts, the Court reasoned, plausibly suggest Checkr failed to design procedures ensuring maximum possible accuracy.
If proven, this failure could establish a violation of §1681e(b).

C. Causation and Damages

To prevail on an FCRA §1681e(b) claim, a plaintiff must show that the CRA’s failure to follow reasonable procedures caused actual harm.
Twumasi-Ankrah alleged that Uber terminated his employment directly due to Checkr’s misleading report, satisfying the causation requirement at the pleading stage.

The Court observed that Uber’s interpretation of the report—as indicating fault—was reasonably foreseeable given the lack of contextual information.
Thus, the alleged injury (loss of income and employment opportunity) was directly traceable to Checkr’s reporting practices.

D. Supporting Precedents

The Sixth Circuit referenced prior FCRA cases in agreement with its reasoning, including:

• Dalton v. Capital Associated Indus., Inc., 257 F.3d 409 (4th Cir. 2001) — holding that a technically true but misleading report may still be inaccurate under the FCRA.

• Koropoulos v. Credit Bureau, Inc., 734 F.2d 37 (D.C. Cir. 1984) — explaining that “accuracy” under §1681e(b) encompasses avoiding misleading impressions.

• Sepulvado v. CSC Credit Servs., Inc., 158 F.3d 890 (5th Cir. 1998) — recognizing that CRAs must avoid producing reports that misrepresent consumer behavior.

The Court reaffirmed that consumer reporting agencies have an affirmative duty to ensure their reports are not misleading in substance or implication, especially when the reports are used for employment purposes.

IV. SEPARATE OPINIONS

A. Concurring Opinion (Judge Kethledge)

Judge Kethledge concurred, agreeing that Checkr’s report could be considered misleading and thus inaccurate under the FCRA.
He emphasized that the phrase “maximum possible accuracy” is expansive and should be construed in favor of consumers.

His concurrence stressed that the context in which information is used matters, and when a CRA knows a report will influence employment decisions, its duty of care increases.

B. Dissenting Opinion (Judge Bush)

Judge Bush dissented, arguing that the majority improperly broadened FCRA liability.
He reasoned that Checkr accurately reproduced the data provided by the BMV and that fault inference by Uber was Uber’s mistake, not Checkr’s.

Bush warned that expanding the definition of “inaccuracy” to include misleading but factually correct data could impose impossible burdens on reporting agencies, requiring them to anticipate all possible employer interpretations.

Despite his dissent, the majority opinion remains binding precedent in the Sixth Circuit.

V. CONCLUSION

The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This decision reaffirmed that under the FCRA:

• “Accuracy” includes freedom from misleading implications, not just factual correctness.

• Consumer reporting agencies like Checkr must adopt reasonable, proactive procedures to ensure fair and complete reporting.

• The failure to contextualize data can amount to an actionable FCRA violation.