IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

JAMES WILLIAMS )

on behalf of himself and the classes defined )

below, )

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

E-BACKGROUNDCHECKS.COM, INC. )

d/b/a BACKGROUNDCHECKS.COM )

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT – CLASS ACTION

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, James Williams, brings this action to secure redress from the consumer

credit reporting practices of Defendant e-BackgroundChecks.com, Inc., d/b/a

BackgroundChecks.com. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Credit ReportingAct, 15USC§1681

et seq. (“FCRA”).

2. In order to protect consumers from losing employment opportunities based on

inaccurate credit reports, the FCRA requires companies to follow reasonable procedures to assure

maximum possible accuracy of consumers’ background reports that are sent to potential employers.

3. BackgroundChecks.com did not maintain reasonable procedures to ensure the

maximum possible accuracy of the information contained in consumer reports that it provided to

prospective employers, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b). It also reported public record

information to employers without informing consumers that such information was being reported

and without maintaining strict procedures to assure that the public information that it reported was

complete and up to date, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681k.

4. Plaintiff brings this action to secure redress for BackgroundChecks.com’s violations

of 15 U.S.C. §§1681 et seq. Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, attorney fees and

costs.

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/11/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, and 

15 U.S.C. § 1681p.

6. Venue in this district is proper because defendant does business here and the harm

to plaintiff occurred in this district.

PARTIES

7. Plaintiff James Williams is a resident of this district and is a consumer as defined by

the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. §1681a(c).

8. Defendant e-BackgroundChecks.com, Inc. is a for profit company that provides

background checks on employers’ potential employees. It is a Texas corporation headquartered in

Dallas, Texas.

9. Defendant e-BackgroundChecks.com, Inc. uses the trade name

BackgroundChecks.com.

10. Defendant e-BackgroundChecks.com,Inc.(“BackgroundChecks.com”)is a consumer

reporting agency as contemplated by the FCRA, 15 U.S.C.§ 1681, et seq

FACTS

11. On October 17, 2011, plaintiff received a Conditional Offer of Employment from

Goodwill Industries of East Texas (“Goodwill”).

12. The above referenced offer of employment was conditional pending the successful

outcome of a background investigation.

13. As part of its ordinaryand regular business practices,Goodwill uses consumer reports

to determine the eligibility of applicants for employment.

14. The background check constituted a “consumer report” for purposes of the FCRA.

15. Goodwill obtained and used Mr. Williams’ consumerreport for employment purposes

from BackgroundChecks.com.

16. The consumer report furnished byBackgroundChecks.com was false and inaccurate

2

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/11/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:2
and included inaccurate criminal reporting from 1993. 

17. In reliance on the false criminal reporting contained in the consumer report, Goodwill

rescinded the Conditional Offer of Employment to plaintiff.

18. Notwithstanding the clear and unambiguous requirements of the FCRA,

BackgroundChecks.com failed to follow procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracyof the

consumer report under 15 U.S.C. § 1681e(b).

19. Mr. Williams has suffered actual damages as a result of these events. He has lost

employment, as he was previously offered the job position contingent upon the background search.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS AS TO RELIABLE BACKGROUND

20. BackgroundChecks.com failed to (1) notify the consumer ... that public record

information is being reported ... together with the name and address of the person to whom such

information is being reported; or (2) maintain strict procedures designed to insure that whenever

public record information which is likely to have an adverse effect on a consumer’s ability to obtain

employment is reported it is complete and up to date.

21. This action is brought as a class action on behalf the following class of individuals,

which class arises under 15 U.S.C. § 1681k and consists of

a. All natural persons residing in the United States or its territories 

b. Who were the subject of a background check prepared by

BackgroundChecks.com

c. Who BackgroundChecks.com failed to notify of the fact that it was issuing

such a report containing public record information at the time that it issued

the report.

d. During the two years preceding the filing of this Complaint until 20 days after

the filing of this Complaint.

.

22. BackgroundChecks.com has engaged in this conduct in relation to a large number of

persons. According to its web site, over 4,500 individuals and companies worldwide rely on

backgroundchecks.com for public records research. Consequently the prospective class meet the

“numerosity” requirements of a class action under Rule 23 especially as many of the companies will

3

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/11/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:3
use defendant’s services for more than one employment applicant.

23. Class counsel will likely obtain the names and addresses of the putative Class

members through documents maintained by BackgroundChecks.com or the employers to whom

BackgroundChecks.com furnished those reports; consequently the parties and the Court can identify

the prospective class members. 

24. Mr. Williams asserts claims under the same legal and remedial theories as those as

those of the prospective class members; consequently, this case meets the “typicality” requirements

of a class action under Rule 23. 

25. Mr. Williams’ case presents issues common to those of the class members:

a. whether BackgroundChecks.com furnished credit reports of the class members to

potential employers without notifying the class members that public record

information was being reported along with the name and address to whom the

information was being reported; and 

b. whetherBackgroundChecks.com follows reasonable procedures to assuremaximum

possible accuracy of the information contained in its consumer reports furnished to

employers for background checks/hiring purposes.

26. These common issues of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting an

individual member; consequently this case meets the “commonality” and “predominance”

requirements for class actions under Rule 23.

27. Mr. Williams will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the putative class. 

28. Because he has asserted the same types of claims as those of the class members, Mr.

Williams’ interests coincide with those of the prospective class members who he seeks to represent. 

29. Mr. Williams has retained competent and experienced counsel in such litigation;

consequently, Mr. Williams is an “adequate” class representative under Rule 23.

30. The damages suffered by each prospective class member are such that individual

prosecution would prove burdensome and expensive given the complex and extensive litigation

necessitated by BackgroundCheck.com's conduct. 

31. The prospective class members would find it virtually impossible individually to

effectively redress the wrongs done to them because:

4

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/11/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:4
a. Consumer reporting cases involving consumer reports furnished for background

check/hiring purposes rarely present large damages which would ordinarily attract

competent counsels.

b. The cost of litigating fair credit cases within the federal court system would deter

many plaintiff’s attorneys from assuming the representation of the prospective class

members in an individual case in light of the small potential recovery. 

c. Few attorneys are qualified to identify, let alone litigate, consumer reporting cases

involving access and use of consumer reports for employment purposes.

d. While cases like these do present the possibility of statutory fee awards, those fee

awards only arise in the event of a successful “actual damage” suit or a finding of

wilfulness. These heightened burdens of proof for successful recoveries frequently

impair the ability of consumer’s to find representation for consumer reporting cases.

e. Even if the members of the putative classes could afford such individual litigation,

and find competent counsel, the number of suits which would be necessaryto remedy

the wrongs in this case would represent an unnecessary burden on the Court.

f. Individualized litigation by these class members also presents the potential for

inconsistent or contradictory judgments and increases the delay and expense to all

parties and the court system.

32. The class action device will result in substantial benefits to the litigants and the Court

by allowing the court to resolve numerous individual claims based upon a single set of proof in a

single case.

33. The class action mechanism a class action is “superior” to other available methods

for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy under Rule 23.

COUNT I – Class Claim Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.

34. Mr. Williams incorporates the preceding allegations by reference.

35. BackgroundChecks.com violated 15U.S.C. § 1681e(b) byfailing to follow reasonable

procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information contained in Mr. Williams’ and

the class members’ credit reports. 

36. BackgroundChecks.com violated 15U.S.C. § 1681k byfailing to notifyMr. Williams

and the class members of the adverse public record information contained within the background

check at the time it publishes that information to the requesting party.

37. BackgroundCheck.com’s failure to comply with this requirements constituted a

5

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/11/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:5
willful violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681n; alternatively, BackgroundCheck.com’s failure

to comply with this requirement constituted a negligent violation of the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. § 1681o.

38. Mr. Williams suffered damages as a result of this violation of the FCRA.

Request For Relief

39. For the reasons set forth above, Mr. Williams requests that the Court Grant the

following relief:

a. Actual damages for items including lost wages, lost employment opportunity,

emotional distress, mental aguish, frustration, humiliation, and embarrassment for

Mr. Williams.

b. Statutory damages for plaintiff and the class in an amount to be determined at trial.

c. Punitive damages for plaintiff and the class in an amount to be determined at trial.

d. Costs and attorney fees provided by statute.

e. Any other relief the Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,

 /s/Keith J. Keogh 

Keith J. Keogh

Keith J. Keogh

Craig M. Shapiro

Timothy J. Sostrin

Keogh Law, Ltd.

101 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 605

Chicago, IL 60606

312-726-1092 (Office)

312-726-1093 (Fax)

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

/s/Keith J. Keogh 

Keith J. Keogh

6

Case: 1:12-cv-00190 Document #: 1 Filed: 01/11/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:6