Tapestry Hit with Class Action Over Alleged Credit Report Violations

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit claims Tapestry, Inc. has violated federal law by failing to provide job applicants with adequate notice and a copy of their consumer report before taking adverse action against them based on the contents of the report.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

In particular, the 14-page lawsuit says that the luxury fashion company has run afoul of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to provide employees and job applicants with a copy of their background check, a statement of their FCRA rights and timely notification before making adverse employment decisions based on the individuals’ third-party consumer reports.

Instead, the luxury fashion house—whose brands include Coach, Kate Spade and Stuart Weitzman—sends employees and applicants a copy of their report and requisite FCRA disclosures only after it has determined an individual to be “ineligible” for employment, the suit alleges.

Per the case, Tapestry utilizes First Advantage Background Services Corporation to perform background checks on candidates for hire, transfer or promotion within the company. The third-party consumer reporting agency provides “adjudication” services whereby it “scores” an individual’s report against Tapestry’s hiring criteria and indicates whether an applicant is eligible or ineligible for employment, the complaint explains.

Under the FCRA, any entity that intends to take adverse action against a job application based on data from a consumer report is required to timely notify the person and provide them with a copy of the report and a statement of their FCRA rights prior to taking action, the filing describes. As the lawsuit tells it, this provision aims to give the consumer time to review their report, dispute inaccuracies or discuss the information with the employer.

The plaintiff, an Arizona resident who had formerly worked at a Tapestry-operated Coach store in California, applied for a transfer to an Arizona location in November 2022, the suit states. Soon after, the defendant requested a background check on the woman, the case relays.

The complaint claims that the report returned by First Advantage erroneously listed the criminal record details of an individual of a “different gender, different date of birth, and other different personal identifying information.” Although the plaintiff has no criminal history, her apparent report included criminal convictions for theft, drunk driving, driving with a suspended license and possession of drug paraphernalia, the filing explains, stressing the inaccuracy of the data.

“All the criminal record history reported by First Advantage to [Tapestry] was inaccurate,” the lawsuit reads. “[The plaintiff] has no criminal history, has never been arrested or charged with any crime, and the records reflect a different gender and date of birth for many of the criminal records in question.”

Based on information in the report at issue, First Advantage determined the plaintiff to be ineligible for hire, and on the Monday following Tapestry’s receipt of her report, the woman was informed that she was being fired because of the criminal history that appeared in her background check, the suit shares.

“Plaintiff was embarrassed, humiliated, and confused, because she has no criminal record, and had not even seen a copy of the First Advantage background report,” the case says.

According to the complaint, the woman was “blindsided” and “had no opportunity to dispute or discuss the report with Tapestry before the adverse action took effect.”

Per the filing, Tapestry did not provide the plaintiff with notice, a copy of her report or a statement of her FCRA rights until the day after she had been terminated, in violation of federal law.

The lawsuit looks to represent any candidates for new employment, continued employment, transfer or promotion with Tapestry, Inc. or its subsidiaries who reside in the United States and who were the subject of a First Advantage background report that was scored as “In-Eligible For Hire” and/or “Fail” since February 17, 2021.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.