Federal Court In Pennsylvania Allows Job Candidate To Bring Fraud And Negligence Claims Against Recruiter Who Allegedly Lied To Prospective Employer About His Educational Credentials
February 23, 2023
By: Carl L. Engel
On February 21, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in the case Patel v. Kelly Services, Inc., held that a job candidate could bring claims for fraud and negligence against a staffing agency that had recruited him for a job for which he was not qualified, and from which he was fired almost immediately. According to the complaint of plaintiff Darshitkumar Patel, he was entirely forthright with the agency about not having completed his bachelor’s degree, but the agency nevertheless told the prospective employer that he had one. After only a week of working with the new employer, they found out that he did not have a bachelor’s degree and fired him for that reason alone. While the court’s opinion allows staffing agencies to continue recruiting for job “fit,” rather than seeking only candidates that strictly meet the job requirements, it does illustrate the caution that recruiters must take with candidate information. As shown below, when an employer actually does rely on a recruiter’s embellishments or omissions, the recruiter may be held responsible for the consequences.
In April 2022, Menarini Silicon Biosystems (“MSB”) contracted with Kelly Services, Inc., a staffing company, to screen and recruit applicants for the position of Senior Quality Assurance Specialist. Kelly Services contacted Mr. Patel, who was working for Johnson & Johnson as a Quality Assurance Associate I. Mr. Patel has completed some college coursework, but he does not have a bachelor’s degree. Accordingly, his resume states “BS, Computer Application (First year completion).” On April 7, 2022, Mr. Patel sent his resume to Kelly Services. The company responded that they would review his submission to determine if he met the requirements for the position. If so, they would contact him to begin the recruiting process.
On April 12, an account manager at Kelly Services emailed MSB to suggest Mr. Patel as a potential candidate. In the email, the account manager wrote that Mr. Patel “has a B.S. in Computer Applications.” He also sent MSB a copy of Mr. Patel’s resume that had been altered to remove the “first year completion” qualifier from the description of his educational background. Based on this information, MSB agreed to interview Mr. Patel.
Before his interview, Mr. Patel texted another Kelly Services employee to ask her whether MSB required a college degree. She responded, “no. When they placed the order months ago they just listed it as preferred. But they also stated that they’d rather have experience vs degree. I don’t think it will come up at all so nothing to worry about.” MSB did not ask Mr. Patel about his education during the interview. On April 21, MSB offered Mr. Patel the position, and he resigned from Johnson & Johnson.
On May 9, Mr. Patel started his position with MSB as planned, but was fired on May 18 when management figured out that he did not have a bachelor’s degree. He thereafter filed a lawsuit against Kelly Services, bringing claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, breach of implied contract, and promissory estoppel. Kelly Services filed a motion with the court to dismiss all of the claims.
On February 21, 2023, the court dismissed Mr. Patel’s claims for negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied contract, and promissory estoppel, but preserved his claims for fraud and negligence. The court reasoned that Mr. Patel could proceed with his fraud claim, because he was justified in relying on the text messages that stated no bachelor’s degree was required for the new job. It held that his negligence claim also was sufficiently pled, because recruiters, whose mishandling of an employee’s information could result in the employee’s termination, have a legal duty to handle that information with reasonable care. Unfavorably for Mr. Patel, however, the court found that his and the agency’s communications did not create an implied contract on which a claim could be based, and found that his estoppel claim could not be supported by only a vague promise to look over his submission.
Whether Mr. Patel had stated a claim for negligent misrepresentation based on the email and text message was a trickier question for the court, because it found no authority under Pennsylvania law as to whether a staffing agency owes applicants a legal duty to accurately answer questions about an employer’s job requirements. The court declined to impose such a duty, because it found that staffing companies often are, in fact, tasked with finding applicants who would be a good “fit” for a given position, rather than applicants who strictly meet the job requirements. The court noted that Mr. Patel’s situation was regrettable, but the fact pattern presented by his case was too unique to merit the creation of a new common-law duty based thereon.
Although the court’s decision allows for staffing companies to continue to recruit candidates who are a good “fit” for a given position, rather than only candidates who strictly meet the job requirements, it does present a warning about candidate information. As illustrated above, when a recruiter gives inaccurate information about a candidate, and an employer actually relies on that inaccuracy to the candidate’s detriment, the recruiter may be liable to the candidate. Accordingly, recruiters should ask their clients which “job requirements” are truly non-negotiable, particularly when it comes to concrete items like licenses and college degrees.