{"id":254,"date":"2026-02-04T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-04T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=254"},"modified":"2026-02-04T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-04T12:00:00","slug":"parsonage-v-walmart-d083831-icraa-employment-background-check-statutory-damages","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=254","title":{"rendered":"Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates \u2014 ICRAA $10,000 Statutory Damages Available Without Proof of Concrete Injury in Employment Background-Check Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Parsonage v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-04<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
D083831<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, ICRAA, Civil Code section 1786.50, Background Checks, Standing, Statutory Damages<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Tina Parsonage, an applicant for or employee of Wal-Mart, sued under California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA, Civil Code section 1786 et seq.), alleging Wal-Mart failed to comply with ICRAA’s notice and disclosure requirements before obtaining an investigative consumer report (a background check) for employment purposes. ICRAA prescribes detailed pre-investigation disclosures that must include the permissible purpose, the agency’s identity and contact information, the nature and scope of the investigation, and links to the agency’s privacy practices.<\/p>\n

Civil Code section 1786.50 provides that a noncomplying user (such as an employer) is liable to the consumer for actual damages or, except in class actions, $10,000 \u2014 whichever is greater. The trial court granted summary judgment to Wal-Mart, holding Parsonage lacked standing because she had not shown a concrete injury such as an adverse employment decision. Parsonage appealed, joined by amici including the UC Berkeley Center for Consumer Law and Public Justice.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal reversed. The court read section 1786.50’s text as authorizing the $10,000 statutory damages award as an alternative remedy that does not require additional proof of concrete injury. The Legislature deliberately created the $10,000 statutory floor as a remedy for the disclosure violation itself; requiring an additional showing of actual harm would render the statutory-damages alternative meaningless.<\/p>\n

The decision aligns with the Second District’s recent published decision in Yeh v. Barrington Pacific (B337904) in the analogous landlord\/tenant context, and is consistent with the federal trend toward statutory-damages-based standing in consumer-protection statutes. ICRAA disclosure violations are themselves the harm the Legislature targeted; the statute does not require employees to prove they were not hired or were denied a promotion.<\/p>\n

Because the trial court erred in requiring proof of concrete injury, summary judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n