Wilson v. CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC was a class action lawsuit charging a large background screening company, CoreLogic SafeRent, LLC (CoreLogic), with producing inaccurate reports that include expunged, sealed and dismissed cases.  The lead plaintiff, Abdullah Wilson, was denied housing in the Bronx in 2012 after CoreLogic’s background report included a 1995 felony conviction that had been vacated and sealed.

Mr. Wilson unfortunately spent years in prison for a crime he did not commit.  In around 2009, the conviction was tossed out by a judge, the prosecutors dismissed the charges, and the record relating to the case was sealed.  CoreLogic apparently obtained its inaccurate felony conviction information about Mr. Wilson from the inmate lookup found on the New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision’s (“DOCCS”) web site.  DOCCS’s inmate lookup is an unreliable source of criminal record information because the web site is not intended to provide outcomes for criminal cases.  Instead, it is intended to provide information on the status and location of individuals incarcerated in DOCCS prisons.  Had CoreLogic checked a proper source, like the court records, it would have realized that the conviction was vacated and sealed years before Mr. Wilson applied for housing.  Furthermore, when Mr. Wilson tried to dispute the accuracy of the report, CoreLogic did not conduct the required investigation, according to the lawsuit.

The class action complaint, which was filed on April 9, 2014, charged CoreLogic with violating the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by systematically and illegally reporting criminal records that have been expunged, vacated, sealed or dismissed.  The complaint also brought a similar individual claim under New York’s Fair Credit Reporting Act, as well as individual claims under both laws for failure to reinvestigate when Mr. Wilson tried to dispute the information.

On July 30, 2014, the parties agreed to dismiss count one of the complaint, a claim for systematically reporting and maintaining information about the race of New York consumers, and the Court signed an order to that effect on August 7, 2014.

On September 29, 2017, the court denied CoreLogic’s motion for partial summary judgment on the two class claims relating to CoreLogic’s failure to use reasonable procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy. The court rejected CoreLogic’s argument that its reliance on the DOCCS inmate lookup constituted “reasonable procedures” as a matter of law.  The court also denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification on numerosity grounds.

In May 2018, the parties entered into a confidential settlement.


Significant Court Documents:

April 9, 2014 – Class Action Complaint – PDF

September 29, 2017 – Decision denying CoreLogic’s motion for partial summary judgment and Plaintiff’s motion for class certification

Share this

Need Legal Help?

¿Necesita ayuda en español?

FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) and other legal resources.

View Here Ver aquí

Support Us

You can become a partner in the fight against stigma and discrimination and for smart, effective public policies by making a tax-deductible donation.

Lend your support