Anne Bucher  |  February 7, 2014

Category: Labor & Employment

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

LexisNexis Esteem database class action lawsuitA class action lawsuit alleging the LexisNexis-powered Esteem “retail theft contributory database” wrongfully labels jobseekers as criminals even when they have not been convicted of a crime was filed Jan. 31 in California federal court.

“The Esteem database is a database comprised exclusively of information derived from the input of participating retail merchants, specifically their detention records for alleged incidents of shoplifting, fraud, and theft,” the class action lawsuit says. “The vast majority, if not all, of the detention records in the database relate to alleged crimes that were never criminally prosecuted and for which no criminal conviction ever resulted.

In his class action lawsuit, plaintiff G. Tsang accuses LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., the creator of the Esteem database, and First Advantage Background Services Corp., which purchased Esteem in 2013, of violating the Fair Reporting Credit Act by giving potential employers information regarding alleged crimes that were never prosecuted.

Tsang alleges that the purpose of the Esteem database is to provide a mechanism for participating merchants to exchange detention records of former employees and customers who have been accused of petty crimes, “while avoiding the time, effort, expense and proof that would be required to pursue the criminal prosecution of such individuals.”

According to the Esteem database class action lawsuit, Esteem allows merchants to use these detention records to deny employment opportunities to individuals listed in the database. Tsang argues that this practice denies these individuals the same due process that is provided through criminal prosecutions.

“While the database serves the convenience of retail merchants and has resulted in substantial profits for defendants LexisNexis and First Advantage, the database causes substantial unfair harm and injury to the individuals whose names are included in the database,” the class action lawsuit says. “As a result of the inclusion of their names and information in the Esteem database, individuals face automatic disqualification from employment opportunities without any due process of law for a period of seven years.”

Tsang argues that this practice effectively strips prospective employees of their right to due process, and that this punishment is out of proportion to the alleged crime. He stresses in his class action lawsuit that this type of punishment “far exceeds the effect that a criminal conviction for the alleged crime would have on an individual’s employment opportunities.”

According to the LexisNexis class action lawsuit, Tsang was confronted by a loss prevention officer at his work in 2010 for allegedly committing refund fraud. He says was detained in the store office, where he was allegedly threatened with arrest if he failed to comply with the loss prevention officer’s demands. Tsang says he was coerced into signing an admission statement, fearing that if he failed to do so, he would be turned over to police and risk criminal prosecution. He was never charged with or convicted of the alleged refund fraud.

In 2012, Tsang applied for a job with a Dollar General store in Stockton, Calif. As part of the online application, he agreed that the store could perform a background check. During the background check process, Dollar General received a report from Esteem indicating that Tsang had signed the admission statement for retail fraud. As a result, Tsang was denied employment. According to the class action lawsuit, Tsang was told he could reapply once his information was no longer contained in the Esteem database.

Tsang filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all individuals who, in the past two years, were subject to an Esteem consumer report that contained incident details for an alleged petty crime that did not result in criminal conviction.

Tsang is represented by Jeffrey Keller, Eric Grover and Carey Been of Keller Grover LLP.

The LexisNexis Esteem database Class Action Lawsuit is Tsang v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00493, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.


One thought on Class Action Says Esteem Database Denies Retail Jobseekers Due Process

  1. Darron Barksdale says:

    What about health care providers put on Esteem?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.