Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PRIVACY—D. Ariz.: Employee failed to show inaccurate reporting in motor vehicle report, (Mar 24, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The inaccurate information the employee focused on was wholly different and completely missing from his complaint.

A consumer reporting agency was granted its motion for summary judgment against an employee’s claim that Lyft terminated his employment after receiving a motor vehicle report (MVR) indicating his driver’s license was suspended, when only his commercial driver’s license had been suspended, ruled a federal district court in Arizona. Although the employee presented evidence that the agency prepared an MVR containing inaccurate information, the inaccurate information he focused on was wholly different and completely missing from his complaint. His motion argued the MVR was inaccurate because the agency reported multiple violations rather than a single violation. But this theory of liability was not in his complaint. Further, in his deposition testimony, the employee admitted that the MVR indicated that his personal, non-commercial driver’s license was valid, not suspended or revoked (Omar v. Safety Holdings Inc., No. CV-23-02532-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz. Mar. 19, 2026)).

Motor vehicle report. The employee worked as a driver for Lyft for approximately 10 years. Lyft contracts with the SambaSafety, a consumer reporting agency to conduct periodic background reports, including checks regarding driver’s license validity, on their employees. On July 27, 2023, the employee received an email from Lyft informing him that his eligibility to drive with Lyft was under review because of information found in his motor vehicle report (MVR). The same day, Lyft suspended the employee’s access to its driving platform.

Unknown to the employee at the time, on July 17, 2023, Lyft ordered a background report from SambaSafety. The employee alleges that the MVR inaccurately reported that his personal driver’s license was suspended or revoked when in fact only his commercial driver’s license had been suspended or revoked.

On July 28, 2023, the employee disputed the alleged inaccurate information with SambaSafety through its online portal. The dispute was not resolved. On August 25, 2023, the employee again disputed the inaccurate information with SambaSafety but did not obtain a resolution.

The employee brought claims under the FRCA for failure to follow reasonable procedures and for failure to perform a reasonable reinvestigation. He alleged he suffered damages because of SambaSafety’s MVR and his subsequent loss of employment with Lyft. The employee moved for partial summary judgment and SambaSafety moved for summary judgment.

Inaccurate reporting. As an initial matter, the court considered the employee’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that SambaSafety violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681e, for failure to follow reasonable procedures. The employee argued that SambaSafety’s MVR contained inaccurate or materially misleading information. For its part, SambaSafety argued that the employee’s motion failed on the merits because the MVR was accurate, SambaSafety’s procedures were reasonable, and the employee failed to prove damages.

“In order to make out a prima facie violation under § 1681e(b), a consumer must present evidence tending to show that a credit reporting agency prepared a report containing inaccurate information.” An agency can escape liability if it establishes that an inaccurate report was generated despite the agency’s following reasonable procedures.

Although the employee presented evidence that SambaSafety prepared an MVR containing inaccurate information, the inaccurate information he focused on was wholly different and completely missing from his complaint. The employee’s complaint alleged that the MVR was inaccurate because SambaSafety reported that his personal driver’s license was suspended or revoked when in fact only his commercial driver’s license had been suspended or revoked. Now he argues the MVR was inaccurate because SambaSafety reported multiple violations rather than a single violation. But this theory of liability and underlying factual allegations did not appear in his complaint.

The employee cannot move for summary judgment based on a theory and factual allegations that he did not plead in his complaint. Accordingly, the employee’s motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

Driver license status. For its part, SambaSafety moved for summary judgment on both the employee’s Section 1681e and Section 1681i claims. SambaSafety argued that the MVR did not contain an inaccuracy regarding the status of the employee’s driver’s license. The employee responded that the MVR contained inaccurate information regarding his driving history.

“[T]o sustain either a § 1681e or a § 1681i claim, a consumer must first make a prima facie showing of inaccurate reporting.” Here, because the employee has not made such a showing, the court did not need to consider the reasonableness of SambaSafety’s procedures or reinvestigation efforts, and the employee’s Section 1681e and Section 1681i claims failed.

The employee’s complaint alleged that the MVR from SambaSafety was inaccurate because it reported that his driver’s license was suspended or revoked when in fact only his commercial driver’s license had been suspended or revoked. However, in his deposition testimony, the employee admitted that the MVR indicated that his personal, non-commercial driver’s license was valid, not suspended or revoked.

Moreover, the employee asserted that SambaSafety’s motion to dismiss falsely asserted that he alleged that SambaSafety reported his personal driver’s license as invalid to Lyft. In fact, that is exactly what he alleged in his complaint. Further, the employee became aware through discovery that SambaSafety had erroneously reported one violation as two. But “[t]he issues on summary judgment are framed by the complaint.” Accordingly, SambaSafety’s motion for summary judgment was granted.

The case is No. CV-23-02532-PHX-DLR.

Judge: Rayes, D.

Attorneys: Daniel C. Cohen (Consumer Justice Law Firm) for Mubarak Omar. Justin Donald Balser (Troutman Pepper Locke) for Safety Holdings Inc. dba SambaSafety.

Companies: Safety Holdings Inc.; SambaSafety

Cases: Privacy Procedure ArizonaNews