The federal class action Hollingsworth v. Walmart Inc. offers a reminder that even large employers can face significant liability when they fail to follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The case also highlights a growing issue in the modern hiring space: the legal risks when candidates voluntarily self‑disclose criminal history before a background check is conducted.
This article summarizes the lawsuit and connects considerations on handling criminal history disclosures.
Overview of the Case
In Hollingsworth v. Walmart, the plaintiff alleges that Walmart violated multiple FCRA provisions during the hiring process. After voluntarily disclosing her criminal history to the store manager, Hollingsworth was interviewed, offered a job, given onboarding materials, and instructed to monitor the company portal for her training start date.
Days later, she discovered that Walmart had obtained a background check and removed her from the training schedule. Within minutes of the report appearing in the portal, the store manager informed her that her job offer was withdrawn due to her records on the background check—records she had already disclosed.
The complaint alleges that Walmart:
- Took an adverse action based on a consumer report without first providing a copy of the report
- Failed to provide a summary of FCRA rights
- Failed to give the applicant time to dispute or explain the report
- Obtained the report without a permissible purpose, since the disqualifying information was already known
Why This Case Matters for HR Professionals
The Walmart case illustrates what happens when HR treats self‑disclosure as permission to bypass compliance.
-
Self‑Disclosure Does Not Replace FCRA Obligations
Even when a candidate voluntarily discloses criminal history, employers must still comply with the FCRA when they obtain a background report from a third party. The FCRA requires:
- A standalone disclosure
- Written authorization
- Pre‑adverse action notice
- A copy of the report
- A summary of rights
- A reasonable waiting period before issuing a final action letter
Skipping these steps—even when the criminal history information is already known—creates liability.
-
Employers Cannot Shortcut the Process
The lawsuit claims Walmart exceeded the scope of the authorization by obtaining a consumer report despite already knowing information that, according to its later actions, disqualified her from employment. The Plaintiff argues that Walmart lacked a permissible purpose for accessing her report.
Self‑disclosure does not eliminate compliance duties and even adds risk to the hiring process. Employers that require self-disclosure may run afoul of state, county or city laws that allow employers to consider criminal history only at specific stages. “Ban the Box” and fair‑chance hiring laws restrict when employers may ask about criminal history and require careful timing and documentation. An employer with multiple locations or that hires candidates from around the country must apply consistent, legally compliant procedures regardless of how the information is obtained. The EEOC stresses that employers must treat applicants consistently and avoid decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions, even when a criminal record is disclosed early in the process. With so many jurisdictions having different standards on when criminal history can be inquired into, it should be apparent why requiring a candidate to self-disclose a criminal history is risky business.
Key Takeaways for HR Professionals
- Continue the full FCRA process even if the candidate self‑discloses criminal history.
- Provide pre‑adverse action notices. Know what your state and local laws requirements are for a compliant pre-adverse action notice.
- Know what your state and locals laws require in terms of waiting periods between pre-adverse and the final adverse action.
- Document all steps.
- DON’T Treat self‑disclosure as a substitute for a background check.
- DON’T withdraw offers before complying with the FCRA adverse action process and any applicable state/local laws on adverse action.
- DON’T assume that “we already knew” eliminates FCRA obligations.
Conclusion
Hollingsworth v. Walmart is a cautionary tale for HR professionals. Candidate self‑disclosure does not reduce an employer’s legal obligations—if anything, it increases the need for careful, consistent, and well‑documented compliance. Employers must follow the full FCRA process every time a consumer report is procured, regardless of what information the applicant volunteers.
Ready to strengthen your background screening process?
Contact us today for a consultation or learn more about Screening University, designed to help your team master best practices and compliance.
