Walmart is defending several class action lawsuits under the Fair Credit Reporting Act over how it handles background checks on job applicants. The largest, Pitre v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., was certified in 2019 on behalf of roughly five million applicants and challenges the disclosure forms Walmart used before running background checks. Newer suits target what Walmart does after a background check comes back, and a separate line of cases attacks how Walmart uses criminal history in hiring decisions.
Pitre v. Wal-Mart Stores: The Five-Million-Applicant Case
The lead case is Randy Pitre v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case number 8:17-cv-01281-DOC-DFM. The complaint alleges that Walmart bundled its background check disclosure with extraneous material, including a liability release, instead of giving applicants the standalone document the FCRA requires. It also alleges Walmart failed to provide applicants with a summary of their FCRA rights, failed to obtain proper written authorization before running background checks, and failed to give adequate notice that background checks would be procured.1Certiphi Screening. Walmart Facing Class Action Suit Over Background Checks
Alongside the federal claims, the case raises violations of two California statutes: the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, which has its own standalone disclosure requirement, and a provision of the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act requiring employers to state the specific basis for requesting a credit report.1Certiphi Screening. Walmart Facing Class Action Suit Over Background Checks The plaintiffs say Walmart’s application materials remained noncompliant even after the company revised them in November 2015.2Top Class Actions. Walmart Workers Seek Class Cert Background Check Lawsuit
Who Is in the Class
On January 17, 2019, the court certified a class of approximately five million Walmart employees and job applicants.3GP1.com. Court Certifies Walmart Applicants in Background Check Suit It covers current, former, and prospective Walmart applicants subjected to an unauthorized background check within the five years before the complaint was filed, with a California subclass for the state-law claims.1Certiphi Screening. Walmart Facing Class Action Suit Over Background Checks
A parallel state-court case, Pitre v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Case No. 30-2017-00927449-CU-OE-CXC), covers individuals for whom Walmart obtained a consumer report for employment purposes in California between June 20, 2015, and December 11, 2017. A class notice circulated in 2022 stated that no settlement had been reached, no trial date had been set, and no money or benefits were available at that time. Setareh Law Group and Robinson Calcagnie Inc. represent the class.4Phoenix Class Action. Pitre v. Wal-Mart Stores Long Form Notice – State Court
Hollingsworth v. Walmart: Denied Jobs Without a Background Report
Hollingsworth v. Walmart Inc. was filed in 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Plaintiff Cynthia Hollingsworth alleges Walmart ran background checks and then rescinded job offers without first giving applicants a copy of the consumer report, without a reasonable opportunity to dispute the information, and without a written summary of FCRA rights before issuing a final adverse action notice. The proposed class covers applicants subjected to a consumer report for employment purposes within the preceding five years who suffered adverse action without those disclosures.5Top Class Actions. Class Action Claims Walmart Denied Jobs Without Providing Background Reports
Merck v. Walmart: A Standing Roadblock for Notice-Only Claims
A separate case tested whether an applicant who receives no pre-adverse action notice can even get into federal court. Thomas Merck alleged Walmart pulled his job offer based on a consumer report flagging a fifteen-year-old misdemeanor, without giving him the notice the FCRA requires before adverse action. The district court dismissed the case, holding that a bare procedural violation is not a concrete injury unless the consumer report was inaccurate or the violation directly caused the adverse action.6Constitutional Accountability Center. Merck v. Walmart
On August 20, 2024, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, ruling Merck lacked Article III standing. The court reasoned that FCRA notice claims against a private employer are not sufficiently analogous to procedural due process rights, which historically apply against government actors. It acknowledged that under the Supreme Court’s 2021 decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, Congress can elevate harms closely related to constitutional injuries into legally cognizable ones, but found that threshold was not met.6Constitutional Accountability Center. Merck v. Walmart The practical takeaway: in the Sixth Circuit, applicants asserting only a procedural notice failure may struggle to establish standing without proof that the violation actually changed the outcome.
Criminal History Screening Suits Against Walmart
Two other class actions target Walmart’s use of criminal records in hiring. These are not straight FCRA cases, but they arise from the same background check pipeline and often get grouped with the FCRA suits.
Ramos v. Walmart Inc. (Case No. 2:21-cv-13827, D.N.J.), brought by Outten & Golden LLP and Youth Represent, alleges that Walmart’s criminal history screening policies have a disparate impact on Black job applicants in violation of Title VII, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and the New Jersey Criminal History Record Information Act. The original named plaintiffs withdrew, and in February 2025 a Special Master recommended allowing new class representatives, John Nole and Rahshan Paige, to step in. A proposed amended complaint narrows the class to Black applicants only, dropping earlier claims on behalf of Latinx candidates.7Midpage. Ramos v. Walmart Inc. Walmart has opposed the substitution, and the case remains active.
In June 2026, Outten & Golden and Fair Work PC filed a class action on behalf of Donald Keets, who applied for an overnight stocking position at a Walmart in Seekonk, Massachusetts, in January 2025. Keets alleges Walmart’s hiring system forces applicants to disclose criminal records and then analyzes their responses for “truthfulness” by comparing them against independently obtained background checks. The complaint characterizes this process as an illegal lie detector test under Massachusetts law.8PR Newswire. Outten & Golden Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Walmart for Subjecting Massachusetts Job Applicants to Lie Detector Tests According to the complaint, Walmart revoked Keets’s conditional job offer after he disclosed a prior conviction, even though the company’s own background check did not uncover that conviction.9Outten & Golden LLP. Outten & Golden Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Walmart for Subjecting Massachusetts Job Applicants to Lie Detector Tests
How TransUnion Changes the Math
The 2021 Supreme Court decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez held that every member of an FCRA class action must show a concrete harm to collect individual damages.10Hunton Andrews Kurth. Criminal Background Check Litigation on the Rise For a case like Pitre, with a certified class of roughly five million applicants, that requirement could significantly affect how many members are ultimately eligible for relief if the case reaches a resolution. It also shaped the Sixth Circuit’s standing ruling in Merck, and it is the backdrop against which the newer Walmart suits will be litigated.