Claim Up to $500 Quick Search Background Screening Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

The Quick Search Background Screening class actions settlement provides benefits for the following two Classes:

Summary Offense Settlement Class:  All individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports, including, but not limited to, criminal background check reports, furnished by Quick Search which labeled a summary offense under Pennsylvania law as a misdemeanor or more serious offense from November 3, 2013 to March 7, 2017.

Multiple Entries Settlement Class:  All individuals who were the subjects of consumer reports, including, but not limited to, criminal background check reports, furnished by Quick Search which reported the same criminal incident as identified by case number more than once in a report from November 3, 2013 to March 7, 2017.

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.


Settlement Amount

  • $450,000.00

Estimated Award

  • Up to $500

It is estimated that members of the Multiple Entries Settlement Class will receive between $50 and $100; while members of the Summary Offense Settlement Class will receive between $200 and $400.  Settlement Class members in both Classes will receive both amounts, between $200 and $500.  These amounts are estimates only and the actual amounts paid will depend on, among other things, the number of Multiple Entries Class Members who submit valid and timely claim forms.


Proof of Purchase

  • N/A

Multiple Entries Class Members Claim Form

  • class action lawsuits

Quick Search Background Screening Settlement Notes

  • Amanda Dougherty v. QuickSIUS LLC, d/b/a Quick Search
  • Case No. 2:15-cv-06432-JHS
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Plaintiff Amanda Dougherty filed this class action lawsuit against Quick Search alleging the nationwide provider of background screening reports violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA.Specifically, Dougherty claims Quick Search prepares incomplete and inaccurate background reports that describe Pennsylvania summary offenses, also known as low grade misdemeanors or minor infractions.

The Quick Search class action lawsuit also contends that the company reports the same criminal information multiple times on a report, creating a background screening report that inaccurately exaggerates the consumer’s criminal history. This practice, says Dougherty, harms consumers seeking employment by prejudicing their prospective employers with inaccurate criminal information.

Quick Search denies the allegations and says it has acted lawfully and in compliance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act at all times. Complete details about the case and settlement can be found on the Quick Search Settlement website.

The Quick Search Background Screening class action settlement was granted preliminary approval on December 20, 2017. Class members who wish to exclude themselves or object to the settlement must do so by April 2 2018. Multiple Entries Class members who wish to participate in the settlement must submit their claim form on or before April 17, 2018. Summary Offense Class members do not need to do anything to receive benefits.


Important Dates

  • 4/17/18: Claim Form Deadline (Multiple Entries Class Members)
  • 4/2/18: Objection or Exclusion Deadline
  • 5/30/18: Final Hearing at 2:00 pm ET* (class members do not need to attend this hearing in order to receive a slice of the settlement pie).

*Settlement Class Members who wish to speak at the hearing should check www.QuickSearchSettlement.com to confirm that the date or time of the Hearing has not been changed.


Contact Information

  • Mail: Quick Search Settlement, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91307, Seattle, WA 98111
  • Phone: 1-833-609-6717
  • Email: QuickSearchSettlement@jndla.com

Class Counsel


Settlement Website

Claim $157.93 El Toro Medical Investors Background Check Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

Class members of the El Toro Medical Investors Background Check Class Action Settlement include “all individuals who applied for employment with any Released Party (defined below) in the United States who executed a background check disclosure and/or authorization form that included a liability release clause and whose background check report was procured pursuant to such form at any time between January 15, 2014 and October 27, 2017.

Released Parties means all Life Care owned, operated, and/or managed facilities, including but not limited to:

  • Life Care Centers of America, Inc.,
  • EI Toro Medical Investors, L.P. dba Lake Forest Nursing Center
  • Life Care Centers of America, Inc. dba Mirada Hills Rehabilitation and Convalescent Hospital
  • Garden Grove Medical Investors Limited Partnership
  • Vista Medical Investors Limited Partnership; and
  • Escondido Medical Investors Limited Partnership

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.


Settlement Amount

  • $675,000.00

Estimated Award

  • $157.93

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and you do not opt out, you will automatically be mailed a check for $157.93 to the address provided in your Class Notice. You do not have to do anything to receive a payment. If your address has changed, you must contact the Settlement Administrator to inform them of your correct address to ensure you receive your payment.


Proof of Purchase

  • No proof is needed; however, Class members who wish to remain in the settlement are encouraged to contact the Settlement Administrator if their address is incorrect or had changed.

El Toro Medical Investors Background Check Settlement Notes

  • Maria Rodriguez, et al. v. El Toro Medical Investors, et al.
  • Case No. 8;16-cv-00059-JLS-KES
  • Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

In January 2016, Plaintiff Maria Rodriguez filed this class action lawsuit against El Toro Medical Investors claiming the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not providing a background check disclosure or authorization form that included a liability release clause.

Specifically, Rodriguez, who was employed as a non-exempt Licensed Practical Nurse for one year by El Toro Medical Investors and Life Care Centers of America, says that prior to be hired, she was required to sign an authorization and disclosure consenting to a background check. This form included a liability release on the same page, which is illegal under the FCRA, The FCRA states that the notice must be in writing and in a stand-alone format and can’t be in an employment application.

El Toro Medical Investors denies all claims and maintains they abided by the FCRA law but agreed to settle the case to avoid the uncertainty of further litigation. Complete details about the case and settlement are provided on the El Toro FCRA Settlement website.

The El Toro Medical Investors Background Check class action settlement was granted preliminary approval on December 6, 2017. Class member who wish to exclude themselves or object to the settlement must do so by February 12, 2018. Class members who wish to participate in the settlement do not need to do anything.


Important Dates

  • 2/12/18: Objection or Exclusion Deadline
  • 6/22/18: Final Hearing at 2:30 pm PT* (class members do not need to attend this hearing in order to receive a slice of the settlement pie).

*Settlement Class Members who wish to speak at the hearing should check www.ElToroFCRASettlement.com to confirm that the date or time of the Hearing has not been changed.


Contact Information

  • Mail: Rodriguez v. El Toro Medical Investors Settlement Administrator, c/o KCC Class Action Services, PO Box 404041 Louisville, KY 40233-4041
  • Phone: 1-866-653-4871

Class Counsel


Settlement Website

Claim $60 24-7 Intouch Job Background Check Class Action Settlement

Who is a Class Member

You are Class member of the 24-7 Intouch Job Background Check Class Action Settlement “if you applied to Ascenda between January 1, 2014 and October 31, 2015, signed a D&A Form, and Ascenda procured or caused to be procured your consumer report on the basis of the D&A Form. You also may be a member of the Pre-Adverse Action Notice Subclass if your application or employment was denied or terminated based on the results of the consumer report.”

If you don’t qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other class action settlements you may be eligible for.


Settlement Amount

  • $1,100,000.00

Estimated Award

  • $60

Once attorneys’ fees and expenses and services awards are deducted, the net settlement fund will be divided pro rata (equal share) among all Settlement Class Members who do not opt out. It is estimated that the cash payout for each Class member will be $60, or possibly more if you did not receive or were fired from a job at Ascenda based on the information in your background check.


Proof of Purchase

  • N/A

Claim Form

  • N/A – To receive your settlement payment, you do not have to do anything. If the Settlement is given the final nod, you will receive a check for your share of the net settlement fund.

24-7 Intouch Job Background Check Settlement Notes

  • Ashley Moody, et al. v. Ascenda USA d/b/a 24-7 Intouch, and Verified Credentials Inc.
  • Case No. 0:16-cv-6364-WPD
  • Pending in the U.S, District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division

In 2015, plaintiff Ashley Moody brought this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of all applicants and employees of Ascenda (24-7 Intouch), alleging the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) because of how they obtained background checks.

Specifically, Moody claims that Ascenda’s D&A form contained release language and their process for distributing a copy of the background check before taking adverse employment action based upon that report was illegal.

Ascenda (24-7 Intouch) denies that it engaged in any wrongdoing or that it violated the FCRA but agreed to settle the allegations to avoid further litigation. The settlement was given preliminary approval on October 23, 2017.

The Frequently Asked Questions section on the settlement website further summarizes the terms of the settlement and how Class Members can file a claim. Complete details are provided in the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement and other related documents are available on the 24-7 Intouch Job Background Check website.

Class members who wish to exclude themselves or object to the terms of the 24-7 Intouch Job Background Check Settlement must do so by February 1, 2018.


Important Dates

  • 2/1/18: Objection or Exclusion Deadline
  • 3/9/18: Final Approval Hearing at 1:30 pm ET* (class members do not need to attend this hearing in order to receive a slice of the settlement pie).

*Settlement Class Members who wish to speak at the hearing should check www.moodysettlementinfo.com to confirm that the date or time of the Hearing has not been changed.


Contact Information

  • Mail: Moody v. Ascenda USA Settlement Administrator, c/o Kurtzman Carson Consultants, P.O. Box 404000, Louisville KY 40233-4000
  • Phone: 1-813-224-0431

Class Counsel


Settlement Website

L3 Technologies Job Background Check Lawsuit Alleges FCRA Violations

Military communications contractor L3 Technologies has recently come under scrutiny over allegations that its onboarding practices violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Plaintiff Joseph Estes, a mechanic hired by L3’s San Diego office in Sept. 2017 and performed work for L3 in Camp Pendleton, filed the proposed class action lawsuit in California federal court Tuesday. Estes states that during the application process he filled out the L3 “Background Investigation Consent” form permitting the company to obtain a consumer report verifying his background and experience. However, this authorization and disclosure form failed to comply with FCRA requirements.

According to court documents, L3’s Background Investigation Consent” form states: “I release L3 Technologies Inc. and/or its agents and any person or entity, which provides information to this authorization, form, any and all liabilities, claims or law suits in regard to the information obtained from any and all the above referenced sources used.” Specifically, the L3 Technologies Job Background Check class action lawsuit alleges that this inclusion of this liability release provision in the background check disclosure and authorization form violates the FCRA.

“The FCRA prohibits this practice and requires that forms granting the authority to access and use consumer report information for employment purposes be stand-alone forms, and not include any additional information or agreements,” the complaint reads.

Additionally, while the disclosure and authorization may be combined in a single document, the FTC warns that the form should not include any “extraneous information.” This requirement is meant to prevent the consumer from being distracted by other information side-by-side with the disclosure, such as the extra provision at the center of this suit.

“Importantly, no extraneous information can be attached or included on the consent form,” according to the L3 Technologies Job Background Check class action lawsuit. “Defendant’s decision to include liability release provisions in its disclosure and authorization forms is contrary to the plain language of the statute and unambiguous regulatory guidance from the FTC.”

Estes is filing the proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of all who signed L3’s allegedly FCRA-violating form that included an authorization and liability release clause within the last five years. He is seeking statutory damages of “no less than $100″ and up to $1,000 per job applicant for the “willful” FCRA violations. The lawsuit also contends that L3 “”acted in deliberate disregard of its obligations and the rights of the plaintiff.”

L3 Technologies is not the only company to come under fire in the past few years for alleged non FCRA compliant job application background check forms. In 2015, Amazon was sued for including a background check authorization on its job application. The case has been currently ordered to remediation. Whole Foods Market Inc. and Home Depot have also faced similar allegations over their liability release provisions and background consent forms.

Estes is represented by Eric B. Kingsley and Kelsey M. Szamet of Kingsley & Kingsley APC.

The L3 Technologies Job Background Check Class Action Lawsuit is Estes v. L3 Technologies Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-02356, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.