UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Gennene Graves, 

individually and on behalf of others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 

v. 

Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC, 

 

 Defendant. 

CLASS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

Gennene Graves (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys, on behalf of 

herself and the class set forth below, brings the following Class Action Complaint 

against Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC (“KBS” or “Defendant”). 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This consumer class action is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting 

Act (“FCRA”) against an employer who routinely violates the FCRA’s basic 

protections by failing to provide the “stand-alone” disclosure required by the 

FCRA. As Defendant’s practices were routine and systematic, Plaintiff asserts 

claims for damages on behalf of a class of similarly situated job applicants and 

employees.

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.1 Page 1 of 14
THE PARTIES 

2. Plaintiff Gennene Graves is an individual person and a resident of 

Taylor, Michigan. 

3. Defendant Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC is a “leading 

provider of contract cleaning and related facilities support services to retailers and 

commercial facilities in North America. “Vision & Values,” http://www.kbsclean.com/About-KBS.aspx (last visited December 31, 2014). Defendant is 

headquartered in Maumee, Ohio. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

5. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because 

Plaintiff resides in this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions 

giving rise to this claim occurred in this District. 

STATUTORY BACKGROUND 

6. Enacted in 1970, the FCRA’s passage was driven in part by two 

related concerns: first, that consumer reports were playing a central role in people’s 

lives at crucial moments, such as when they applied for a job or credit, and when 

they applied for housing. Second, despite their importance, consumer reports were 

unregulated and had widespread errors and inaccuracies. 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.2 Page 2 of 14
7. While recognizing that consumer reports play an important role in the 

economy, Congress wanted consumer reports to be “fair and equitable to the 

consumer” and to ensure “the confidentiality, accuracy, relevancy, and proper 

utilization” of consumer reports. 15 U.S.C. § 1681. 

8. Congress was particularly concerned about the use of consumer 

reports in the employment context, and therefore defined the term “consumer 

reports” to explicitly include background reports procured for employment 

purposes. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681a(d)(1)(B).

9. Through the FCRA, Congress required employers to make a clear and 

conspicuous written disclosure to employees and job applicants, in a document that 

consists solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for 

employment purposes. 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2). 

10. Specifically, Congress made it unlawful for an employer or 

prospective employer to “procure, or cause a consumer report to be procured, for 

employment purposes with respect to any consumer, unless ...a clear and 

conspicuous disclosure has been made in writing to the consumer at any time 

before the report is procured or caused to be procured, in a document that consists 

solely of the disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment 

purposes.” 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added). This requirement is 

frequently referred to as the “stand-alone disclosure requirement.” 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.3 Page 3 of 14
11. Consumers cannot exercise their substantive rights to ensure that 

reports about them are accurate and kept appropriately confidential unless they 

know those reports exist. 

12. The stand-alone disclosure requirement helps to empower consumers 

to exercise their rights because it ensures that employees and job applicants know 

when consumer reports about them are being generated. 

13. Many other provisions of the FCRA are also notice provisions. See 

15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A) (pre-adverse employment action notice requirement); 

§ 1681b(4)(B) (notification of national security investigation); § 1681c(h) 

(notification of address discrepancy); § 1681d(a) (disclosure of investigative 

report); § 1681g (full file disclosure to consumers); § 1681k(a)(1) (disclosure 

regarding the use of public record information); § 1681h (form and conditions of 

disclosure); § 1681m(a) (notice of adverse action). 

14. Like the other notice provisions in the FCRA, the stand-alone 

disclosure provision puts consumers on notice that a report about them may be 

prepared. This knowledge enables consumers to exercise a variety of other 

substantive rights conferred by the statute, many of which work to ensure 

accuracy, confidentiality, and fairness. 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(a) (limiting temporal 

scope of information that can be reported); § 1681e(b) (mandating that consumer 

reporting agencies employ procedures to ensure “maximum possible accuracy” in 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.4 Page 4 of 14
reports); § 1681k (requiring consumer reporting agencies that report public record 

information to employers to either provide notice to the consumer that information 

is being reported or have “strict procedures” to ensure that information is 

“complete and up to date”); § 1681i (requiring that consumer reporting agencies 

investigate any disputed information); § 1681g (requiring that consumer reporting 

agencies provide a complete copy of the consumer’s file to the consumer). 

15. Without a clear notice that a consumer report is going to be procured 

on them, applicants and employees are hindered in their ability to correct errors or 

other problems with the reports. 

16. As discussed below, Defendant routinely violated the FCRA, and 

consumers’ rights, by failing to provide the required stand-alone disclosure to 

employees and job applicants before procuring consumer reports on them. 

ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO PLAINTIFF 

17. Near the end of 2012, Plaintiff applied to work as a janitor for 

Defendant at an H&M department store in Dearborn, Michigan. 

18. Plaintiff received an application packet from KBS. Included in the 

application packet was a document entitled “Employment Screening Inquiry 

Form.” (“Screening Form,” attached as Exhibit A.) 

19. The Screening From contains a number of extraneous items that 

violate the FCRA’s stand-alone disclosure requirement. 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.5 Page 5 of 14
20. First, the Screening Form contains a liability waiver that purports to 

release KBS from liability. Specifically, the Screening Form states: 

I hereby generally release and fully discharge KBS, every such 

governmental agency and every such Prior Company from and 

against any and all liability with respect to, or arising from the release 

or dissemination of any such information for any such purpose. 

21. The Screening Form also contains a purported waiver of notice from 

the applicant, stating that the applicant “waive[s] any further notice with respect to 

Employers [sic] inquiries, such governmental agencies, such Prior Company’s, 

dissemination of any such report(s).” 

22. The Screening Form further has another purported agreement that the 

applicant’s “employment promotion or retention may be determined, in whole or in 

part, based on report(s) so issued to KBS.” 

23. The Screening Form was the only document Plaintiff ever received 

from KBS that related to the fact that KBS was going to procure a consumer report 

on her. 

24. On or about January 9, 2013, KBS requested and procured a consumer 

report entitled a “Consumer Investigation Report” on Plaintiff from consumer 

reporting agency, Welliver & Associates (“Welliver”). (Exhibit B.) 

25. In December 2014, Plaintiff requested her personnel file from 

Defendant. In response, Defendant produced an incomplete copy of her personnel 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.6 Page 6 of 14
file that is missing several pages. Defendant’s response included a complete copy 

of Plaintiff’s report from Welliver. (Exhibit C). 

ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO DEFENDANT’S PRACTICES 

26. More than fifteen years ago, the Federal Trade Commission 

emphasized that including extraneous information, especially a liability waiver, in 

a disclosure form, as Defendant did here, is a violation of the FCRA. Letter from 

William Haynes, Fed. Trade Comm’n, to Richard W. Hauxwell, CEO Accufax Div.

(June 12, 1998), available at 1998 WL 34323756 (explaining that “inclusion of 

a . . . waiver in a disclosure form will violate Section [1681b(b)(2)(A)] of the 

FRCA, which requires that a disclosure consist ‘solely of the disclosure that a 

consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes’”).

27. Courts that have addressed liability waivers placed in disclosure forms 

have agreed with the FTC that including such a waiver violates the FCRA’s standalone disclosure requirement. Dunford v. American Databank, Inc., No. C 13-

03829, 2014 WL 3956774 at *6 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2014) (finding document that 

contained a liability release to “not consist solely of the disclosure because it added 

a paragraph exonerating [the defendant]”); Avila v. NOW Health Grp., Inc., No. 14 

C 1551, 2014 WL 3537825 at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 17, 2014) (finding inclusion of 

liability waivers to be “contrary to the express language of the FCRA, which 

requires a disclosure ‘in a document that consists solely of the disclosure’”); 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.7 Page 7 of 14
Singleton v. Domino’s Pizza, No. 11-1823, 2012 WL 245965 at *9 (D. Md. Jan. 

25, 2012) (“[B]oth the statutory text and FTC advisory opinions indicate that an 

employer violates the FCRA by including a liability release in a disclosure 

document.”); Reardon v. Closetmaid Corp., No. 2:-8-cv-01730, 2013 WL 6231606 

at *10-11 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2013) (finding disclosure with liability waiver to be 

“facially contrary to the statute at hand, and all of the administrative guidance”).

28. Before Welliver provided reports to Defendant, in accordance with 

Welliver’s standard procedures, Welliver required Defendant to certify that it 

would comply with the stand-alone disclosure provisions of the FCRA. 

29. KBS certified to Welliver that it would comply with the stand-alone 

disclosure provisions of the FCRA. 

30. KBS’s inclusion of a provision in the Screening Form stating that the 

applicant waives all rights to “further notice” demonstrates that KBS knew 

additional notice might be required. 

31. Rather than provide applicants with legally required further notice, 

KBS chose instead to pretend that the applicants had waived their rights. 

32. Defendant did not procure Plaintiff’s reports in connection with any 

investigation of suspected misconduct relating to employment, or compliance with 

federal, state, or local laws and regulations, the rules of a self-regulatory 

organization, or any preexisting written policies of the employer. 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.8 Page 8 of 14
33. Upon request from Plaintiff, on approximately December 17, 2014 

Welliver sent Plaintiff a complete copy of her consumer report procured by KBS. 

(Exhibit B.) 

34. By systematically inserting a liability release and other extraneous 

information into Plaintiff’s and other class members’ disclosures, Defendant 

willfully violated 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

35. Plaintiff asserts her claims on behalf of the class defined as follows: 

All individuals on whom KBS obtained a consumer report for 

employment purposes in the two years predating the filing of this 

Complaint and continuing through the date the class list is prepared. 

36. Numerosity: The class is so numerous that joinder of all class 

members is impracticable. Defendant has hundreds of employees, many of whom 

are members of the class. 

37. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the class members’ 

claims. The FCRA violations committed by Defendant were committed pursuant 

to uniform policies and procedures, and Defendant treated Plaintiff in the same 

manner as other class members in accordance with its standard policies and 

practices. 

38. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of 

the class, and has retained counsel experienced in complex class action litigation. 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.9 Page 9 of 14
39. Commonality: Common questions of law and fact exist as to all 

members of the class and predominate over any questions solely affecting 

individual members of the class. 

40. Class certification is appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) 

because questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over any 

questions affecting only individual members of the class, and because a class 

action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication 

of this litigation. Defendant’s conduct described in this Complaint stems from 

common and uniform policies and practices, resulting in common violations of the 

FCRA. Members of the class do not have an interest in pursuing separate actions 

against Defendant, as the amount of each class member’s individual claim is small 

compared to the expense and burden of individual prosecution, and Plaintiff is 

unaware of any similar claims brought against Defendant by any members of the 

class on an individual basis. Class certification also will obviate the need for 

unduly duplicative litigation that might result in inconsistent judgments concerning 

Defendant’s practices. Moreover, management of this action as a class action will 

not present any likely difficulties. In the interests of justice and judicial efficiency, 

it would be desirable to concentrate the litigation of all class members’ claims in a 

single forum. 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.10 Page 10 of 14
CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

Failure to Provide Stand-Alone Disclosure

41. Defendant violated the FCRA by procuring consumer reports on 

Plaintiff and class members without making the stand-alone disclosure required by 

the FCRA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2). 

42. Defendant acted willfully and in knowing or reckless disregard of its 

obligations and the rights of Plaintiff and the other class members. Defendant’s 

willful conduct is reflected by, among other things, the fact that it violated a clear 

statutory mandate set forth in 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2), and that Defendant 

certified that it would comply with 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(2). Further: 

(a) The FCRA was enacted in 1970; Defendant has had over 40 

years to become compliant; 

(b) Defendant’s conduct is inconsistent with the FTC’s 

longstanding regulatory guidance, judicial interpretation, and 

the plain language of the statute; 

(c) Defendant knew or had reason to know from its 

communications with Welliver that Defendant’s conduct 

violated the FCRA; 

(d) Defendant certified to Welliver that it would comply with the 

disclosure requirements of the FCRA but failed to do so; 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.11 Page 11 of 14
(e) Defendant repeatedly and routinely uses the same unlawful 

documents it provided to Plaintiff with its applicants and 

employees; 

(f) Despite the pellucid statutory text and there being a depth of 

guidance and Defendant’s own acknowledgment that further 

notice could be required, Defendant systematically procured 

consumer reports without first disclosing in writing to the 

consumer in a document that consists solely of the disclosure, 

that a consumer report may be obtained for employment 

purposes; and 

(g) By adopting such a policy, Defendant voluntarily ran a risk of 

violating the law substantially greater than the risk associated 

with a reading that was merely careless. 

43. Plaintiff and the class are entitled to statutory damages of not less than 

$100 and not more than $1,000 for each and every one of these violations, pursuant 

to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(1)(A). Plaintiff and the class members are also entitled to 

punitive damages for these violations, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(2). 

Plaintiff and the class members are further entitled to recover their costs and 

attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1681n(a)(3). 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.12 Page 12 of 14
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

44. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the class, prays for 

relief as follows: 

a. Determining that this action may proceed as a class action under Rule 

23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 

b. Designating Plaintiff as Class Representative and designating 

Plaintiff’s counsel as counsel for the class; 

c. Issuing proper notice to the class at Defendant’s expense; 

d. Declaring that Defendant violated the FCRA; 

e. Declaring that Defendant acted willfully, in knowing or reckless 

disregard of Plaintiff’s rights and its obligations under the FCRA; 

f. Awarding statutory damages as provided by the FCRA; 

g. Awarding punitive damages as provided by the FCRA; 

h. Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as provided by the 

FCRA; 

i. Granting other and further relief, in law or equity, as this Court may 

deem appropriate and just. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

45. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

Plaintiff and the class demand a trial by jury. 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.13 Page 13 of 14
Dated: January 7, 2014 

 By: s/Julie A. Petrik 

Julie A. Petrik P47131 

Ian B. Lyngklip P47143 

LYNGKLIP & ASSOCIATES 

CONSUMER LAW CENTER, PLC 

24500 Northwestern Highway, Ste. 206 

Southfield, MI 48075 

(248) 208-8864 

 Ian@MichiganConsumerLaw.Com 

NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 

E. Michelle Drake, MN #0387366* 

John G. Albanese, MN Bar #0395882* 

4600 IDS Center 

 80 South Eighth Street 

 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 

 Telephone: 612-256-3200 

 Facsimile: 612-338-4878 

 drake@nka.com

 jalbanese@nka.com

 *(applications for admission forthcoming) 

 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 

Case 2:15-cv-10052-MOB-DRG ECF No. 1 filed 01/07/15 PageID.14 Page 14 of 14