News

U. S. District Court Sides with Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane Attorneys

 

In Kenn v. Eascare, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts sided with Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP attorneys, Sarah Spatafore and Paul King, in allowing the defendant employer’s motion to dismiss claims brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the “FCRA”) as a purported class action. Their triumph had been featured on the front page of Lawyer’s Weekly (insert which edition??) The District Court’s decision addresses an issue of law on which multiple circuit courts of appeal have disagreed. That is, what constitutes an injury in fact necessary to confer standing for a plaintiff to establish a violation of the FCRA?

 

Generally, the FCRA requires employers to provide a disclosure, in stand-alone format, to any applicant for whom the employer may obtain and use credit reporting information in making a hiring decision. The disclosure must be “clear and conspicuous” and “in a document that consists solely of the disclosure.” However, the statute permits the necessary written authorization from the employee to be “on the same document.” As it stands, only the Ninth Circuit has held that a mere procedural violation of the technical requirements such as the stand-alone disclosure form does constitute an injury. But the Seventh and Eighth Circuits have disagreed, concluding instead that a more concrete and particularized harm resulting from the employer’s violation must be alleged. In this case, the employer’s disclosure form contained, among other things, a release of liability for all parties involved in obtaining and furnishing the credit report. The plaintiff alleged only this bare procedural violation, without identifying any particularized harm. She did not, for example, allege that she experienced any confusion that materially affected her understanding of what she was authorizing.

 

The plaintiff initially filed her FCRA claims in Massachusetts state court, along with other claims under the Massachusetts Wage Act. Recognizing the split on this issue at the federal level, Attorneys Spatafore and King made the strategic decision to remove the case to federal court, on the basis of federal question and supplemental jurisdiction, where they saw the opportunity for a more favorable result on a motion to dismiss. This strategy ultimately paid off, as the Court accepted MHTL’s argument on the standard of review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), allowing Eascare’s motion and dismissing the FCRA claims for lack of standing.

 

Latest News

Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP Partner Recognized as a Top Women of Law Honoree for 2022

  Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP is proud to announce that Attorney Kathryn Murphy, a Partner at the firm, has been selected as a Top Women of Law 2022 honoree by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly. The honorees are selected based upon their “ significant contributions to the legal profession while also serving as role models for women entering the law.” Ms. Murphy is the first attorney at the firm to receive this prestigious honor. She has been practicing law at Read More

Legal Updates

NEW LEGISLATION ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO CARE FOR MENTAL HEALTH HAS IMPACTS ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

On August 10, 2022, Chapter 177 of Acts of 2022, “An Act Addressing Barriers to Care for Mental Health” was signed by Governor Baker. For public schools, it has impacts on student discipline, special education services, and emergency response plans. The bill goes into effect on November 8, 2022. Set forth below are summaries of the new law’s impact in the identified areas.

Braintree, MA

50 Braintree Hill Office Park, Suite 410,
Braintree, MA 02184

Boston, MA

75-101 Federal Street
Boston, MA 02110

Tel: (617) 479-5000
Tel: (888) 841-4850
Fax: (617) 479-6469

Quincy, MA

Crown Colony Plaza
300 Crown Colony Drive, Suite 410
P.O. Box 9126
Quincy, MA 02169-9126

© 2023 Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP. All Rights Reserved. Website by Interactive Palette