California employers may not obtain an investigative consumer report to aid them in making employment decisions without complying with the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). (Civ. Code, § 1786, et seq.) An employer who fails to comply with any of ICRAA’s requirements is liable to the consumer who is the subject of the report for “[a]ny actual damages sustained . . . as a result of the failure or, except in the case of class actions, ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever sum is greater.” (§ 1786.50, subd. (a)(1), italics added.) We hold ICRAA, by its plain language, authorizes consumers to recover the statutory sum as a remedy for a violation of their statutory rights, without any further showing of injury. We thus conclude the trial court erred when it required a consumer to demonstrate a concrete injury, such as an adverse employment decision, to establish ICRAA standing and reverse its grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer.
Sorokunov v. NetApp, Inc. (CA1/4 A171964 3/3/26) Arbitration | PAGA
Plaintiff Alexander Sorokunov sued his former employer NetApp, Inc. (NetApp), alleging various violations of the Labor Code. He also sought civil penalties and wages pursuant
There are 0 comments