Print Page | Search

Receive our E-newsletter:

Main Office: Philadelphia, PA (215) 656-3600
Toll Free (800) 631-1233




News Coverage


Press Releases

Seminars & Events



SEPTA Background Checks Violate Federal and State Laws, According to Attorneys

May 12, 2016

A new federal lawsuit alleges Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) willfully violates federal and state laws when conducting criminal background checks of prospective employees, says Outten & Golden LLP and a coalition of legal advocates.

Filed in federal court in Philadelphia, the class action accuses SEPTA, the nation’s sixth-largest public transportation system, of routinely rejecting job applicants based on information contained in reports obtained from background check companies.

The lawsuit alleges SEPTA fails to comply with the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in its procurement of consumer reports for employment purposes. According to the complaint, SEPTA fails to provide job applicants with a required “clear and conspicuous” written disclosure that it may obtain a consumer report for employment purposes. The “clear and conspicuous,” also known as “stand alone” disclosure is important to ensuring accuracy and preventing employers from distracting job applicants with unrelated information and requests.

SEPTA also is accused of routinely violating Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) through its policy and practice of disqualifying job applicants with unrelated felony convictions from employment in positions involving the operation of SEPTA vehicles.

The named plaintiff is Frank Long, a 55-year-old resident of Philadelphia and a commercially licensed bus driver whose October 2014 job offer for a position as a SEPTA bus operator was rescinded after he was subjected to SEPTA’s criminal background check process.

Mr. Long stated, “I’ve lived in Philadelphia practically all my life and have experience doing exactly the kind of work SEPTA was hiring for. I care about my community and am not a threat to anyone. This job would make a real difference in my life.” Mr. Long was convicted of a drug related felony over 20 years ago but has stayed on the right side of the law ever since.

The legal team for the putative class includes Adam T. Klein, Ossai Miazad, Lewis M. Steel, Christopher M. McNerney, and Cheryl-Lyn Bentley, of Outten & Golden LLP’s New York office; Michael Lee and Michael Hardiman of Philadelphia Lawyers for Social Equity, of Philadelphia; Jon Greenbaum and Mateya Kelley of Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, of Washington, D.C.; Benjamin D. Geffen of Public Interest Law Center, of Philadelphia; and Ryan Allen Hancock of Willig, Williams & Davidson, of Philadelphia.

Ossai Miazad, partner at Outten & Golden LLP and one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, said, “SEPTA systemically violates laws that are intended to ensure accuracy, confidentiality, and fairness in hiring. By failing to provide proper disclosures, SEPTA hinders job applicants, like Mr. Long, in their abilities to preserve their privacy and to correct errors or other problems with the reports. In Mr. Long’s case, there’s no question he is a good citizen with a solid work history despite his earlier life experiences. Even SEPTA recognized this when its recruiter offered him a job.”

Benjamin Geffen, attorney from the Public Interest Law Center in Philadelphia, stated: “Hiring practices barring individuals with conviction history from jobs unrelated to their previous convictions cripple job applicants who have paid their debt to society and seek to move forward with their lives as responsible citizens.”  Ryan Allen Hancock, of counsel at Willig, Williams & Davidson and former assistant chief counsel of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission noted, “For this precise reason, the U.S. Department of Justice has designated this week as National Reentry Week calling on employers such as SEPTA to adopt fair and reasonable hiring practices.”

Mr. Long and the legal team seek injunctive and declaratory relief; statutory damages; exemplary and punitive damages; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses associated with this action.

More information about the lawsuit is available at

About Our Firm     |    Practice Areas     |    Attorney Profiles     |     Resources     |     Collectively...the Blog     |     Contact Us     |     Home

1845 Walnut Street - 24th Floor - Philadelphia, PA 19103 - (215) 656-3600
212 Locust Street - Suite 301 - Harrisburg, PA 17101 - (717) 221-1000
101 Windsor Avenue - Haddonfield, NJ 08033 - (856) 616-0606
801 Old York Road - Suite 313 - Noble Plaza - Jenkintown, PA 19046 - (215) 884-7352
77 W. Washington St. - Suite 2120 - Chicago, IL 60602

© 2019 Willig, Williams & Davidson. All rights reserved.                                                                              Attorney Advertising          Site Map          Disclaimer

Bankruptcy / Consumer Law / Criminal Defense / Domestic Relations / Family Law / Election and Campaign Finance Law / Employee Benefits Plans
Labor and Employment Law / Union Representation / Legal Services / Personal Injury / Real Estate / Wills, Trusts and Estates / Workers' Compensation