To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On January 27, 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment by the plaintiff and the defendant in
Andres Romero (“Plaintiff”) v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC (“Monterey”), et al., a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case involving allegations of identity theft.
Romero v. Monterey Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 19CV1781 JM (KSC), 2021 WL 268635 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021). The Court denied summary judgment as to whether Monterey conducted a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff s dispute under the FCRA but granted judgment in favor of Monterey finding that its investigation was not a willful violation under the statute.
Seyfarth Synopsis:
On January 20, 2021, Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney signed three bills amending the city’s ordinances regulating employer use of criminal and credit history in employment screening. All employers with workers in the City of Philadelphia should immediately assess their screening programs and make necessary adjustments.
The City Expands its “Ban-the-Box” Ordinance
Since 2015, Philadelphia’s “Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards” (FCRSS) has required employers that use criminal history for pre-hire screening purposes to, among other things, defer any inquiries about criminal history until after a conditional offer of employment, remove any criminal history question from employment applications, and remove any question in employment documents regarding the applicant’s willingness to submit to a background check before a conditional offer. The law also prohibits Philadelphia employers from considering convictions older than seven years (excluding any
Advertisement
Failure to Conduct a Thorough Investigation Was Not Willful Disregard of Furnisher’s Duty to Conduct Reasonable Investigation Monday, February 8, 2021
On January 27, 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment by the plaintiff and the defendant in
Andres Romero (“Plaintiff”) v. Monterey Financial Services, LLC (“Monterey”), et al., a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case involving allegations of identity theft.
Romero v. Monterey Fin. Servs., LLC, No. 19CV1781 JM (KSC), 2021 WL 268635 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2021). The Court denied summary judgment as to whether Monterey conducted a reasonable investigation of Plaintiff s dispute under the FCRA but granted judgment in favor of Monterey finding that its investigation was not a willful violation
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania recently compelled arbitration involving a claim by a plaintiff who had not signed a Comcast subscriber agreement on the ground that the plaintiff had used benefits under the agreement and exercised control over the Comcast account. The court held that the plaintiff was therefore equitably estopped from avoiding arbitration.
James Shelton’s
father signed up for Comcast and agreed to Comcast’s subscriber agreement, which provided, among other things, that Mr. Shelton’s
father was accepting the agreement “on behalf of all persons who use [Comcast’s] Equipment and/or Service(s) at the Premises” (i.e., the Shelton household) and that Mr. Shelton’s father had “sole responsibility for ensuring that all other users understand and comply with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any applicable policies.” The agreement also contained an arbitration clause.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use our site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Review our Privacy Policy for more information. You may change your preferences on how cookies are stored by reviewing the settings on your browser.