She passed the interview and got the call. Then the report no one let her read changed it
She got the job. Then a background check undid it - and now SpartanNash is facing a class action.
The complaint, filed June 17, 2026 in federal court in North Dakota, tells a story HR teams will recognize. Tara Lean Boswell says the food distribution and retail company pulled her job offer over a background report she never saw first - a step the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the federal law on how employers use background and credit reports, requires before any rejection.
The timeline, as the filing lays it out, moves fast. Boswell applied for a retail role at a SpartanNash Family Fair store in South Bismarck on January 28, 2026. She interviewed, and on February 3 the company called to say she had the job. The same day, the screening vendor HireRight sent her an authorization form, which she filled out.
Then it fell apart. On February 19, HireRight told her she did not "meet [Defendant's] company standards." A day later, the company's talent acquisition team said it was "unable to consider [Plaintiff] further for a position with the company due to [her] background check results not meeting [Defendant's] company standards."
The problem, the complaint says, is sequence. By the time that February 20 notice landed, Boswell had already been turned down. The filing alleges she was told she had "up to five (5) days to respond" to the screening company - but says the decision was already made, leaving her no real chance to challenge the report first. She did not get a copy of it until March 3.
This is where the case matters for anyone who runs hiring. The FCRA requires a "pre-adverse-action" step: before rejecting someone over a background report, the employer hands over a copy and a summary of rights, then waits a reasonable time. Boswell alleges SpartanNash did it in reverse - rejection first, paperwork second.
She also says the report was inaccurate. According to the filing, it listed "a criminal charge that had been dismissed" and a felony-level charge she says should have been recorded as a misdemeanor under a plea agreement. Catching mistakes like those is exactly what the pre-rejection notice is for.
The complaint also alleges SpartanNash falsely certified to HireRight that it would follow the FCRA's adverse-action rules to gain access to applicants' reports at all, and that the conduct was reckless given the company's "knowledge of the requirements of the FCRA."
Boswell is seeking to represent three proposed classes of applicants screened over the prior two years. The filing estimates at least 500 people could qualify, out of a workforce of about 20,000. She wants statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 per violation, plus punitive damages, costs and fees.
The takeaway for HR is simple. A rejection driven by a background report is an adverse action, and the disclosure has to come before the call, not after. Outsourcing the check to a vendor does not shift that obligation. And a five-day response window is meaningless if the candidate has already been told no.
The allegations have not been tested in court. SpartanNash has not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled on the claims or on whether the case can proceed as a class action.
