In a recent Eighth Circuit case, the appellate court vacated the district court’s orders, holding that the plaintiff lacked Article III standing to bring her Fair Credit Reporting Act claims in federal court.
In Auer v. Trans Union, LLC, plaintiff Colleen Auer had accepted a job as city attorney for the City of Minot, North Dakota. Several days later, Auer signed an authorization form permitting the City to run a background check on her. The City later terminated Auer’s employment.
Auer then filed a lawsuit against several defendants, including the City, the City’s law firm, and the consumer reporting agency that provided the background report, alleging violations of a number of obligations under the FCRA. Specifically, Auer asserted that the City procured her consumer report without making “a clear and conspicuous disclosure” that her “consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes;” that the City did not obtain her written authorization to do so; and that the City procured and used her report for purposes not authorized by the FCRA. Auer claimed that these purported violations “caused her to suffer injury to her privacy, reputation, personal security, the security of her identity information and loss of time spent trying to prevent further violations of her rights under the FCRA.” The district court dismissed Auer’s claims on the merits and Auer appealed.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit first considered whether Auer had standing to assert her claims. The Court held that “[b]ecause Auer consented to the City’s background check, she failed to plead an intangible injury to her privacy that is sufficient to confer Article III standing.” Auer’s argument that she did not authorize or consent to the procurement and use of her consumer report “is belied by her well-pleaded allegation that she completed the City’s authorization form.” In sum, Auer’s conclusory and speculative allegations of some undefined harm were insufficient to establish Article III standing. The Eighth Circuit therefore vacated the district court’s orders dismissing Auer’s claims on the merits and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.