Apply for the SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP exam today! Applicants now have the option to test from home.
Find answers to your COVID-19 vaccine questions here. We’ve compiled the latest news, policies and guides on vaccines and the workplace.
Members can get help with HR questions via phone, chat or email.
To grow, evolve and inspire we must engage in continuous learning.
Virtual & New Orleans, LA | June 12-15, 2022. There’s no cause we can’t effect when we come together as one HR.
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
A June 25 Supreme Court decision that only plaintiffs who are concretely harmed may sue in federal court may help stop "no-harm" class actions in those courts.
"The court held that a mere risk of future harm cannot qualify as concrete harm and that to state a claim under the FCRA [Fair Credit Reporting Act], there must be actual dissemination of a consumer report to a third party," said Pamela Devata, an attorney with Seyfarth in Chicago. While the Supreme Court ruling in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez may result in fewer "no-harm" class actions in federal court, Devata said, "we will likely see an uptick in state court filings."
We’ve gathered articles on the decision from SHRM Online and other trusted outlets.
Class Limited
Federal courts in California had awarded $40 million in damages to a class of 8,185 consumers the credit bureau TransUnion falsely labeled as potential terrorists on their credit reports. Only the 1,853 whose reports were disseminated to third-party business could bring claims under the constitutional limitation of lawsuits to "cases" and "controversies." The Supreme Court’s decision is likely to increase the trend of filing class actions in state courts, where it typically is easier to bring such claims.
(The Wall Street Journal)
Impact on Employers
The decision may have a broad potential impact for employers beyond potential FCRA claims. Technical statutory violations may be insufficient to allow class members to sue. The decision could impact employers facing class actions in federal court involving privacy claims with statutory damages (such as biometric time-clock laws), certain Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility claims, or other state or local statutory claims involving statutory damages.
(Fisher Phillips)
Reliance on Prior FCRA Case
The Supreme Court relied in TransUnion on its Spokeo v. Robins decision, also a FCRA case. The TransUnion case did not involve any employment-related claims under the FCRA but bolsters the many opinions dismissing such claims for lack of standing—lack of sufficient harm to sue.
(Lexology)
Real Harm Required to Sue
In Spokeo, the Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that a mere technical violation of the law may not injure a plaintiff enough for him or her to be able to sue. There must be real harm to sue—or "concrete" harm, in the words of the court. "For employers facing class-action litigation from employees or former employees, where the harm alleged historically has been something very short of concrete, Spokeo gives defendants another weapon in the arsenal for defending against such claims," said Emily Keimig, an attorney at Sherman & Howard in Denver.
(SHRM Online)
[Want to learn more? Join us at the SHRM Annual Conference & Expo 2021, taking place Sept. 9-12 in Las Vegas and virtually.]
Standing Requirements Vary in State Court
Standing requirements vary from state to state. Plaintiffs probably won’t have much success if they try to file federal statutory class actions based on consumer laws such as the FCRA in state courts that require concrete injuries. Nonetheless, Missouri law professor Thomas Bennett predicted that between 20 and 30 states—including populous states like California, Illinois, North Carolina and Missouri—will likely hear state-court class actions alleging federal statutory violations. However, Andrew Pincus, an attorney with Mayer Brown in Washington, D.C., said, "There are serious questions about whether these claims can be litigated in state court."
(Reuters)
Members may download one copy of our sample forms and templates for your personal use within your organization. Please note that all such forms and policies should be reviewed by your legal counsel for compliance with applicable law, and should be modified to suit your organization’s culture, industry, and practices. Neither members nor non-members may reproduce such samples in any other way (e.g., to republish in a book or use for a commercial purpose) without SHRM’s permission. To request permission for specific items, click on the “reuse permissions” button on the page where you find the item.
You have successfully saved this page as a bookmark.
Please confirm that you want to proceed with deleting bookmark.
You have successfully removed bookmark.
Delete canceled
Please log in as a SHRM member before saving bookmarks.
Your session has expired. Please log in as a SHRM member.
Please purchase a SHRM membership before saving bookmarks.
An error has occurred
Expand your toolbox with the tools and techniques needed to fix your organization’s unique needs.
