A worker sued staffing buyer Johnson & Johnson and staffing firm Kelly Services last month claiming they used information from a background check to reject him for a job without giving him a chance to respond, according to court documents. The suit, filed in federal court in Pennsylvania, seeks class action status.

Plaintiff T. Jason Noye claims he applied for an operations supervisor position at Johnson & Johnson through Kelly Services, and the suit says he was offered a job on Feb. 11, 2015, pending a background check.

The complaint says Noye indicated he had been convicted of a crime and responded with information on the situation. However, using what the suit described as an inaccurate and misleading background check report, Johnson & Johnson declined to hire him. The suit (T. Jason Noye v. Johnson & Johnson and Kelly Services Inc.) says Noye was notified of the rejection on March 13, 2015.

Noye’s complaint says the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires workers be given a copy of the report and the notice of his or her rights before and “adverse action” is taken, such as the cancelation of a job offer in order to address possibly inaccurate information.

The suit also claims Kelly Services didn’t provide “a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing to the consumer in a document that consists solely of the disclosure that a consumer report may be obtained for employment purposes.”

A similar suit had been filed against staffing buyer Amazon and Staff Management | SMX. That suit is still going through the courts although a settlement offer has been made.

Noye also filed a suit against the provider of the background check, Yale Associates Inc., claiming the firm unlawfully reports Pennsylvania “summary offenses” as misdemeanors making a criminal record history appear more serious than it actually is (Noye v. Yale Associates Inc.). Pennsylvania law considers summary offenses as less serious than misdemeanors, according to the complaint. This lawsuit also seeks class action status.

Noye has one misdemeanor conviction from 2008 for “defiant trespass” stemming from an altercation with an ex-girlfriend. However, Yale misreported four other summary offenses as misdemeanors and listed three additional purported safety violations, which cost plaintiff the job with Johnson & Johnson, the suit says.

“In its report furnished to J&J, Yale reported four inaccurate misdemeanor charges in addition to the accurate trespass charge: (a) a misdemeanor conviction for harassment subject other to physical contact; (b) a misdemeanor charge of revocation of license to carry firearm; (c) a misdemeanor weed violation, and (d) a misdemeanor criminal mischief charge. All four of these charges were actually summary offenses,” according to the lawsuit. “The first entry was related to an altercation in 2007 and the third was due to grass on plaintiff’s tenant’s lawn exceeding height limitations.”

Yale mailed Noye a copy of the report on May 12, 2015.