The three plaintiffs in the case filed a memorandum of law arguing that contrary to SEPTA’s claims that the plaintiffs have failed to show any harm from the company’s alleged failure to provide job applicants with a standalone disclosure and authorization of a background check, SEPTA’s “deprivations of plaintiffs’ rights to privacy and information,” are exactly the sort of harms Congress enacted the law to protect against.

"SEPTA fails to support its argument that plaintiffs have not suffered particular harm and does not dispute plaintiffs' well-pled allegations of particularized harm," the plaintiffs added.

In its argument to dismiss the case last month, SEPTA claimed that since the plaintiffs in the case willfully disclosed convictions to SEPTA prior to having their background checks ran and the plaintiff’s checks contained no inaccuracies, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a “concrete and particularized injury.”

The full text of the plaintiff’s memorandum of law is available here.

To read more about the case, which was filed in April, you can read our previous News to Note on the matter, here.

Source: Law360.com, 7/25/2016