She was the highest-rated worker on the platform — then came the background check
A dental staffing company is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly suspending a top-rated worker based on a background check she never saw.
Melissa Helgerod worked for Cloud Dentistry from late 2022 through 2025. She held a perfect 5-star rating on every job placement and was, according to court filings, the highest-rated dental assistant on the company's platform in New York. Then, in June 2025, her account was suspended.
The reason? Information contained in a background check report she claims she was never given a chance to review.
Helgerod filed suit on January 14 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging Cloud Dentistry violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it took adverse action against her without first providing a copy of her consumer report or informing her of her rights under federal law.
The case puts a spotlight on a compliance issue that continues to trip up employers across industries: the FCRA's strict requirements around background checks and adverse employment decisions.
Under the law, employers who use consumer reports to make hiring or termination decisions must provide the affected worker with a copy of the report and a summary of their rights before taking action. The purpose is straightforward—give people a chance to review the information and dispute any errors before losing a job opportunity.
Helgerod says that never happened. According to court documents, she completed an authorization form for a background check through Yardstick, a consumer reporting agency, on or about June 10, 2025. Two days later, she received an email stating her account had been suspended. She claims the report contains inaccuracies that paint a false and negative picture of her—but she only learned how to obtain a copy after hiring an attorney.
Cloud Dentistry, which reportedly places over 10,000 dental workers with employers each month, has not yet responded to the allegations. No determination on the merits has been made.
The lawsuit seeks to represent three classes of workers who may have experienced similar treatment over a two-year period. One class covers those who allegedly faced adverse action without receiving their reports beforehand. Another includes individuals whose reports were allegedly obtained beyond the scope of their authorization. A third encompasses those for whom the company allegedly made false certifications to the background check agency about its intent to comply with the law.
If certified, the class could include thousands of workers. The suit seeks statutory damages ranging from $100 to $1,000 per violation, plus punitive damages.
For HR professionals, the case is a reminder that even well-established FCRA requirements can become expensive liabilities when ignored. The law has been on the books for over 50 years, yet employers continue to face lawsuits over the same procedural missteps: skipping the pre-adverse action notice or moving too quickly from background check to termination.
