Advance Auto Parts makes tentative deal in lawsuit over hiring practices 

To resolve a legal challenge to its background-checking process, Advance Auto Parts has tentatively agreed to pay $100 apiece to more than 2,500 people who were turned down after applying for a job.

The settlement’s price tag is an estimated $360,000, money Advance has tentatively agreed it would furnish without admitting responsibility or conceding any of the allegations against the company are true.

A hearing has been scheduled for Oct. 23 in U.S. District Court in Roanoke to finalize the settlement, under certain conditions.

The case began in September 2012 when John Hamilton Stinson, whose hometown wasn’t given, sued the Roanoke auto parts retailer on grounds it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The 1970 law governs the collection, privacy and sharing of consumer information by credit reporting agencies, employers and others.

Among his allegations, Stinson contended that Advance didn’t properly obtain his consent with a stand-alone form before accessing his consumer information in response his application for employment in 2010. Stinson’s suit said the information Advance received included felony convictions by someone with the same last name but a different first name.

Though he started working for Advance, the company rescinded its job offer after 10 days over the result of the background check, according to the suit, which also alleged that Advance frequently acted on adverse background-check information without giving applicants a copy of the information beforehand, as the law requires.

Stinson said he obtained the information Advance was given about him by personally contacting HireRight, the background check company Advance used.

Advance, which has 55,000 full- and part-time employees, denied the allegations in the lawsuit.

Thursday, Advance agreed to present a settlement and compensation plan to a judge and to former job applicants for review, while it continues to deny the allegations in the lawsuit.

Stinson maintains his allegations are valid. But the two parties said in a joint filing that they want to settle the case rather than having a trial.

Under the settlement plan, Stinson’s lawyers would receive $99,000 for their representation services and expenses and Stinson would receive $5,000 for being the lead plaintiff.

The agreement calls for paying compensation to people who applied for work at Advance, underwent a background check that found a disqualifying criminal record or credit issue and did not get the job or a timely copy of the consumer report. Advance believes 2,571 people fit that definition and it will identify them so Stinson’s lawyer can notify them, court papers said.

HireRight Solutions, a sister company of HireRight, agreed in August 2012 to pay a $2.6 million civil penalty to the federal government to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The company did not admit fault. Prosecutors alleged that HireRight failed to ensure the accuracy of the information it gave to employers, court papers said.

Advance no longer uses HireRight, Advance spokeswoman Shelly Whitaker said.

Whitaker said Advance has “policies and procedures in place to ensure that the rights of our applicants are protected, including those rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.” She declined further comment.

Weather Journal

6 hours ago

1. 41-vehicle wreck ties up traffic Sunday on I-81 in Rockbridge County 

2. Virginia Tech football roster has holes on picture day

3. Medicare penalties hit hospitals in Roanoke, New River Valleys

4. Microfestivus beer event gets downtown Roanoke hopping 

5. McFarling: 2 little numbers are a big hurdle for Virginia Tech football 

6. Arrest made in case of missing Nelson County teen

7. DAN CASEY: Copter cost still stirring up dust

8. Virginia attorney general's office grows under Ken Cuccinelli 

9. Man's drowning is 5th in Lynchburg area 

10. Roanoke farmers markets making local foods more accessible