Applicant accuses SpartanNash of pulling job offer over unseen background check

Then it fell apart. On February 19, HireRight told her she did not “meet [Defendant’s] company standards.” A day later, the company’s talent acquisition team said it was “unable to consider [Plaintiff] further for a position with the company due to [her] background check results not meeting [Defendant’s] company standards.”

The problem, the complaint says, is sequence. By the time that February 20 notice landed, Boswell had already been turned down. The filing alleges she was told she had “up to five (5) days to respond” to the screening company – but says the decision was already made, leaving her no real chance to challenge the report first. She did not get a copy of it until March 3.

This is where the case matters for anyone who runs hiring. The FCRA requires a “pre-adverse-action” step: before rejecting someone over a background report, the employer hands over a copy and a summary of rights, then waits a reasonable time. Boswell alleges SpartanNash did it in reverse – rejection first, paperwork second.

She also says the report was inaccurate. According to the filing, it listed “a criminal charge that had been dismissed” and a felony-level charge she says should have been recorded as a misdemeanor under a plea agreement. Catching mistakes like those is exactly what the pre-rejection notice is for.

The complaint also alleges SpartanNash falsely certified to HireRight that it would follow the FCRA’s adverse-action rules to gain access to applicants’ reports at all, and that the conduct was reckless given the company’s “knowledge of the requirements of the FCRA.”