For Krishan Tucker, a single mother in Atlanta, everything she does revolves around creating stability for her two sons.
She spent years climbing the corporate ladder in the healthcare consulting industry, driven by a determination to give her boys a life away from her own upbringing. After a layoff, an abnormal mammogram and the end of her marriage, Tucker appeared to catch a break in late 2025, landing what she described as a “miracle” job that pays $165 an hour. The offer, however, never materialized.
Tucker’s employment was suspended after a background check by third-party screening firm HireRight flagged discrepancies in his work history while on board through MBO Partners. The report cited “potential conflicts” related to previous contract roles and freelance consulting work that she later turned into her own business.
“Before he could even start, he was just ripped away,” Tucker told Atlanta News First Investigates. “I cried and screamed. This is not something I did wrong. It’s literally a small problem and it was a mountain standing between me and a job that would provide a livelihood for me and my children.”
Thinking the job offer was finalized, Tucker has already found a new house to rent with the help of friends and family. The start date at what was supposed to be her new job was set for mid-December.
However, the job offer was quickly taken off the table. When she reviewed the background report herself, Tucker identified a key error: According to notes in the HireRight system, a company with which Tucker was contracted between 2017 and 2018 reported that she never worked there. After contacting her former employer directly, Tucker learned that the verification request was submitted under the wrong last name.
“[The HR rep] said, ‘Well, the problem is they sent the application asking me to check a job for Krishan Tucker, not Krishan Dawson,” said Tucker, whose last name was Dawson. Tucker allegedly disclosed this key detail on her background check form.
The same HR representative from Tucker’s former company emailed HireRight on December 17, 2025 to correct the mistake.
“I just found out that the verification request for Krishan Tucker is actually Krishan Dawson. I can confirm that Krishan Dawson was on assignment [here],” read part of the HR representative’s email to HireRight.
Although the error was later corrected, HireRight continued to report inconsistencies with Tucker’s employment data, which Tucker believed were the result of the name error in her background check.
While her background check error was beyond unfortunate, Tucker is far from alone, as consumer advocates say background check mistakes are both widespread and costly.
According to Consumer Justice, estimates put the chance of errors occurring during background checks at 50% (2), a level the National Consumer Law Center has described as “abundant.” Ariel Nelson, staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, said lax oversight allows screening errors to persist, often to the detriment of consumers (3).
“Unless Congress, federal agencies and states act to ensure that screening companies are closely monitored and held accountable for repeated mistakes due to poor policies and practices, consumers will continue to pay the price in lost housing and job opportunities, while employers and landlords will lose qualified employees and tenants,” Nelson said.
Background checks are now standard practice, with about 95% of employers using them, according to the Professional Background Screening Association (4). HireRight is one of the largest screening firms in the US, serving over 40,000 employers.
Read more: The average net worth of Americans is a surprising $620,654. But it means almost nothing. Here’s the number that matters (and how to make it skyrocket)
But consumer reviews and federal complaint data suggest there are lingering concerns with HireRight, as the company averages about one star on both Google and the Better Business Bureau (1). Data analyzed by Atlanta News First Investigates shows that HireRight complaints filed with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau nearly tripled in 2025, with 91 complaints filed in 29 states.
While HireRight generally responded to background check errors within the required timeframes, public records do not indicate how often those responses resulted in corrections.
Additionally, some online complaints about HireRight seemed similar to Tucker’s experience. In a statement from the Better Business Bureau, a job applicant claimed that a drug test in late November incorrectly flagged marijuana and a prescription drug, despite a recent negative test for another employer (5).
On December 23, MBO Partners issued a “Final Adverse Action” notice, rescinding Tucker’s offer of employment (1). The company said it could not comment on the details of her case because of federal privacy laws, but stressed that candidates are given the opportunity to review and challenge background check reports before hiring decisions are finalized.
Tucker is now piecing together part-time work while continuing to apply for full-time roles and has since filed a lawsuit against HireRight. Meanwhile, consumer advocates say her experience is a reminder that there are steps workers can take when a background check affects a job offer.
The first step is to know your rights. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, employers are required to notify applicants when a background report contributes to a negative hiring decision and must provide information about the screening company used and the applicant’s right to challenge inaccurate or incomplete information. Workers are also entitled to a free copy of the report used in the decision (6).
Experts also recommend reviewing your credit and background reports before applying for jobs to catch errors early. Job seekers can request a free copy of their credit report at AnnualCreditReport.com and may want to review state and local laws that limit what potential employers can request and when.
If errors occur in the background check, disputes must be submitted directly to the reporting agency, along with any supporting documentation. Agencies are typically given up to 30 days to investigate, a time frame that can conflict with immediate financial needs such as rent, health care or childcare.
Workers who believe a screening company has mishandled their report can also file a complaint with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Join over 200,000 readers and be the first to receive the best stories and exclusive interviews from Moneywise – clear information curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
We only rely on verified sources and credible third-party reports. For details, see editorial ethics and guidelines.
Atlanta News First Investigates (1); Consumer Justice (2); National Consumer Law Center (3); Professional Screening Association (4); Better Business Bureau (5); Federal Trade Commission (6).
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. Offered without warranty of any kind.
