United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division
For Talita Miller, Crispin Rork, Plaintiffs: Charles Jason Brown, Jayson A. Watkins, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Brown & Associates, LLC, Gower, MO.
For Quest Diagnostics, Defendant: Andrew Cahill Johnson, LEAD ATTORNEY, Amy Lynne Nixon, Charles Edwin Reis, IV, Littler Mendelson, PC-STL, St. Louis, MO.
STEPHEN R. BOUGH, United States District Judge.
Defendant Quest Diagnostics' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Talita Miller and Crispin Rork's claims for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (" FCRA" ) (Doc. 11), is granted in part and denied in part. Defendant's motion is denied as to Count I and granted as to Count II.
I. Pleading Standard
Defendant brings its motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In order to survive the motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs' complaint must meet the standard set out in Rule 8(a), which requires that a plaintiff plead sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. " To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citations omitted). A pleading that offers only " labels and conclusions" or a " formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" is not sufficient. Id.
In determining whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a plausible claim to relief, all factual allegations made by the plaintiff are accepted as true. Great Plains Trust Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 492 F.3d 986, 995 (8th Cir. 2007) (noting that legal allegations are not accepted as true). If the facts in the complaint are sufficient for the Court to draw a reasonable
inference that Defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct, the claim has facial plausibility and will not be dismissed. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Plaintiffs bring this case as a putative class action, arguing that Defendant violated the FCRA through its process of obtaining consumer reports regarding prospective employees.
Plaintiffs first allege that Defendant violated the FCRA by failing to inform prospective employees that a consumer report would be obtained about them " in a document consisting solely of the disclosure." Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's disclosure form contains approximately one page of information regarding state statutes and various state-administered employee rights with respect to consumer reports, none of which applies to Plaintiffs; a release provision stating that the signatory " fully understand[s] that all employment decisions are based on legitimate non-discriminatory reasons[; ]" and administrative sections marked " For Office Use Only" and " Employer Use Only." [Complaint, Doc. 1-1, pp. 6-9].
Plaintiffs next argue that the FCRA prohibits Defendant from obtaining electronic authorizations to secure consumer reports. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant uses an electronic authorization form with electronic signatures to authorize Defendant to procure consumer reports and contend that Defendant's failure to ...