Applicant alleges Lowe’s pulled his offer over an unseen background check

The applicant alleges that Lowe’s relied on a background report from a screening firm, First Advantage, and rescinded his offer based on what it found. His core claim: Lowe’s never gave him a copy of that report or a meaningful chance to challenge it first. The Fair Credit Reporting Act – the federal law governing how employers use background and credit reports in hiring – generally requires employers to provide applicants a copy of the report and a summary of their rights before taking “adverse action,” like withdrawing a job offer. 

What followed, the complaint says, was a muddle. The filing states he received a “pre-adverse action” email on February 19, 2026, telling him the check was complete and had been sent to Lowe’s, and directing him to wait for the company. According to the complaint, that call never came. He says he tried to dispute the report and got no response. On February 27, 2026, the complaint states, a Lowe’s recruiter emailed to thank him for his interest and withdraw the offer, citing information in his pre-employment screenings. 

There’s a second prong. The applicant alleges the report carried criminal-record information more than seven years old – which, he claims, Texas law forbids. The state statute he cites bars reporting arrests, indictments, or convictions where the disposition, release, or parole predates the report by more than seven years. The complaint says that outdated information “paints a false and negative picture” of him. 

He is suing for himself and a proposed class. The filing estimates at least 500 people could qualify, noting Lowe’s employs approximately 300,000 individuals and routinely runs background checks. The complaint alleges the company acted in “deliberate or reckless disregard” of its duties and seeks statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, plus punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. 

For HR and talent-acquisition teams, the lesson is concrete. The FCRA’s adverse-action process is not a box to tick. When a report sinks a candidacy, the law generally calls for a two-step sequence: a pre-adverse notice with the report and a rights summary, a window for the applicant to respond, then a final notice. Blurring those steps – or letting a vendor’s confusing emails substitute for your own communications – is exactly the kind of failure the complaint alleges here.