Skip to main content

Anderson v. Trans Union LLC.

W.D. Wis.May 3, 2005No. 03-C-0510-CCited 5 times
Defendant WinTrans Union LLC
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Crabb
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Trans Union LLC, finding that the consumer reporting agency did not violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to conduct proper reinvestigations or by including false deceased notations in plaintiffs' credit reports.

What This Ruling Means

**Anderson v. Trans Union LLC - Court Decision Summary** This case involved a dispute between consumers and Trans Union, a major credit reporting company. The plaintiffs claimed that Trans Union violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to properly investigate disputes about their credit reports and by incorrectly marking them as deceased in their credit files. The consumers argued that these errors damaged their credit and that Trans Union didn't do enough to fix the problems when notified. The court ruled in favor of Trans Union, granting summary judgment for the company. The judge found that Trans Union did not violate federal credit reporting laws, even though there were errors in the credit reports. The court determined that the company's reinvestigation procedures met legal requirements and that the inclusion of false deceased notations didn't constitute a legal violation under the circumstances. This decision matters for workers because credit reports significantly impact employment opportunities. Many employers check credit reports during hiring, and errors can prevent people from getting jobs. While this ruling favored the credit reporting agency, it highlights the ongoing challenges workers face when credit report errors affect their employment prospects. Workers should regularly monitor their credit reports and understand the dispute process to protect their job opportunities.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Gore
5th CircuitFeb 2026
Defendant Win
Johnson v. North Texas Dancers, LLC
N.D. Tex.May 2021
Settlement
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.