Consumer complaint received 2020-04-13
Company: Checkr, Inc
State: CA
Product: Credit reporting, credit repair services, or other personal consumer reports
Sub-product: Other personal consumer report
Issue: Incorrect information on your report
Sub-issue: Public record information inaccurate

Complaint:
Based on the facts in which I will describe in this complaint, I strongly believe that Checkr, an investigative consumer reporting agency, has violated my Federal and State rights by the disclosure of incorrect and outdated information to XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX. Also, Checkr has added irrelevant information to the report as found in the sentencing notes section of the charges listed on my current and most recent report with them. Furthermore, Checkr has negligently, and willfully supplied a background check report on myself to XXXX, XXXX that was pulled over two years ago when I had attempted to obtain a driving job from XXXX at that time but was denied based on the report. The problem with this particular situation is that XXXX was given a few days ago a report concerning my background history to XXXX that had a date of XX/XX/XXXX, which was when I started the application process with XXXX, and had given my consent for them to run my background check, and a completion date of XX/XX/XXXX. You can relate the report that was sent to me as a link in the email from Checkr to me by looking at the report title at the bottom of their emails and with the actual report that I had received after clicking on that link to verify that they actually do match report title names and dates. I have sent all as an attachment to this complaint. This was the report that was recycled and given again to XXXX a few days ago on a completely new attempt and application to do deliveries-not ride-sharing- but deliveries with XXXX XXXX, etc. Based on all of this info that I have obtained with my research, email exchanges, and by viewing the background reports that Checkr has supplied to me by giving me a link through email exchanges on the XXXX of XX/XX/XXXX, I have come to the conclusion that Checkr has violated the following Federal laws : 15 USC 1681e ( b ) ( FOLLOW REASONABLE PROCEDURES TO ASSURE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN CONSUMER REPORTS ) as well as : 15 USC 1681k ( a ) ( MAINTAIN STRICT PROCEDURES DESIGNED TO INSURE THAT SUCH INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND UP TO DATE ) AND ALSO : 15 USC 1681c ( a ) ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) ( PROHIBITING CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES FROM INCLUDING CRIMINAL RECORDS THAT FROM THE DATE OF ENTRY ANTEDATE THE REPORT BY MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS OR UNTIL THE GOVERNING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS EXPIRED-IN THIS CASE THAT WOULD BE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 1786.18 ( b ) ( 7 ) ) Checkr has also violated the California Civil Code as stated in the previous sentence and also : Ca Civ Code section : 1786.20. I will now describe more explicitly the situation that has occurred : Having the XXXX charge in the first degree is very damaging and in my case is not accurate for the case in which Checkr is reporting to all of the Companies I have listed above. However, Second Degree XXXX XXXX is what it should be and it is a very loose and broad range of different things that can cause a charge like that to be upheld. In my case, since I signed for the deal that was offered to me so that I could be sentenced to a full time live-in rehabilitation program, post sentencing diversion if you will, as opposed to having to do any further time XXXX, then that's what I had to agree to. I will attach the report to this complaint. 

Also, the even larger issue at hand is the fact that that it was committed over 8 years ago, and if I am not mistaken, California law has you guys ( consumer reporting agencies ) capped at reporting any kind of criminal history beyond the seven year mark. Unless of course I am to be applying for a job that requires a full DOJ background check such as Law enforcement, Health/medical, or education and any type of job that requires a person to deal with the elderly or children ; which is not the case here with these e-commerce delivery companies. I know, also, that certain ride share or DOT driving jobs also might fall into the extended length background timeline that the state of California has imposed, but again, this is not my case with this application or any delivery job with companies such as XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and so on, Therefore, this should not even be reported to anybody anymore because of the maximum length of time that California has set in place as Law, which by the way is where all of the companies listed above are headquartered out of and also because this is where I live. That makes the laws of California fully enforceable as well because it would be the Governing agency along with the Federal government too. 

Finally, the fact that you guys have included in the comments /sentencing notes section of the charges on this particular report that has been supplied to everyone listed above, that I had " admitted to the previous other charges as part of my sentencing deal '' should not even be on my report to potential employers to begin with. This kind of information that is no longer part of my background check history due to the previous charges being outdated and no longer reportable by state law is extremely damaging to me and my character. Not only does it now paint a negative picture in the potential employers ' mind when they read that note in the case comments, but it is completely irrelevant to this particular case since it is not what I was being sentenced on at that time. It is nobody 's business any further what I had in the past beyond the states statute of limitations regarding reporting adverse information on a consumer report, but since it is no longer legally reportable, then by you guys including this extra comment in the noted section of these charges now tells the potential employer that there is more than just this particular case in my past. Even though they can not legally use outdated info, it does not matter once they read adverse info Like that because now it will be in the back of their head that my history goes back even further than what they can legally know about in the first place. It's kind of a under-handed way to give people more information about myself for them to base a decision on, and it is also very illegal for anybody to imply or insinuate anything other than what is factual about the charges that are currently being reported, even damaging information about previous charges that they should not even be aware of past the seven year mark in the first place. I can assure you that I am not happy about this little sneaky underhanded trick that was used by Checkr when reporting these charges about me to potential employers, but I am also possibly considering filing a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau due to this issue that I had discovered after reviewing my report, as well as possibly retaining an Attorney to represent me if this has to go that route in the end. 

I honestly don't have the time or the energy to be dealing with all of this right now, but when it comes to my livelihood and also when it is about me trying to do my life the correct and honest way after I had some issues with the law almost a decade ago, and then something like this gets in the way of me trying to be able to earn a living and to be able to pay my rent and to have enough food on the table, then believe me-I will make the time and find the energy if forced to do so. These things might be petty to people like yourself that probably never had a terrible background, but to me, it is beyond damaging to not only my reputation but to my character, and to other things as well such as emotional and mental stress and to financial ruin. I do hope that you can see things through my eyes for even a split second so that maybe you can truly understand what I have to deal with every time an employer denies my application due to things like this. It is very depressing, very discouraging, and just an overall self-esteem and morale killer too.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation