Skip to main content

Johnson v. Trans Union, LLC

7th CircuitApril 8, 2013No. No. 12-2083Cited 14 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Easterbrook, Sykes, Wood
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court affirmed summary judgment for the three credit reporting agencies, finding that Johnson failed to present evidence that the defendants reported inaccurate information about his child support arrearage, and that the defendants were required by the FCRA to report the information provided by the Illinois child support enforcement agency.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** Johnson sued three major credit reporting agencies (Trans Union, Experian, and Equifax) claiming they failed to accommodate his request to fix what he said was wrong information about his child support payments on his credit report. Johnson argued the agencies were reporting inaccurate details about money he owed for child support. **What the court decided:** The court ruled in favor of the credit reporting agencies. The judge found that Johnson couldn't prove the information on his credit report was actually wrong. More importantly, the court determined that under federal law (the Fair Credit Reporting Act), the credit agencies were required to report the child support information exactly as it was provided to them by Illinois's child support enforcement agency. They didn't have a duty to investigate or change information that came from a government agency. **Why this matters for workers:** This case shows how challenging it can be to get credit reporting agencies to remove information from your credit report, even when you believe it's incorrect. Workers should understand that credit agencies often rely on information from government agencies and employers, and may not be required to investigate disputes if the information comes from what the law considers reliable sources. If you have credit report disputes, you may need to resolve issues directly with the original source of the information.

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

Similar Rulings

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
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant 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.