In February, 2016, Pamela Devata, attorney and noted legal expert on the Fair Credit Reporting Act, reported the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on an FCRA claim in the case of Henderson v. Corelogic National Background Data, LLC, No. 3:12cv97. This decision has sweeping implications for data providers as well as Consumer Reporting Agencies and End Users of Consumer Reports.
POE is a client of CoreLogic and CoreLogic National Background Data LLC, we value our relationship with it and we value its reports.
However, database reports are not FCRA compliant and you, the End User of such reports, MUST NEVER MAKE A HIRING OR LEASING DECISION BASED UPON THE CONTENT OF CRIMINAL DATABASE REPORTS ALONE.
These reports have great value in identifying POSSIBLE criminal records, but before factoring a database record, YOU MUST VERIFY THE DATABASE RECORD WITH A SECOND SOURCE; EITHER A CRIMINAL COURT RECORDS INVESTIGATION OR DIRECTLY WITH THE APPLICANT.
In our processing of Client applications, POE does not report any criminal records database records, unless we either confirm the accuracy of the record, during an interview with the applicant or until we conduct a Statewide or County criminal court records investigation.
If POE is not vetting your criminal history records investigations, who is? Are you?
Understand the broad-reaching impact this U.S. District Court case has on you, the end-user of consumer reports.
The lines between data provider (CoreLogic NBD, LLC) and CRA (POEknows) have been blurred, according to Pamela Devata, potentially expanded the liability of inaccurate reports. POE believes that, as a result, all data providers, CRAs and End Users should examine their best practices to mitigate this new risk.