It is perfectly legal to discriminate based on Credit Reports as long as it is NOT a substitute for discrimination against a Protected class of people. What I mean by "Substitute" is when a non illegal discrimination method is adopted, but it is used to discriminate against someone in a Protected class. The Classic case was in the late 1960s when the Courts held it was discrimination to refuse to hire non-high school graduates, when almost all the people in the area of the business where either whites with High School Diplomas or African-Americans without such diplomas AND the job had nothing to do with education level. The Court found that the requirement for a high School Diploma was a way to hire only whites. That was discrimination against African-Americans and ruled to be illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
On the other hand, the courts are less likely to make the finding today (in fact there is subsequent case with the same employer where the court did make such a ruling, ruling that the high School Diploma was a valid job requirement).
Thus I do NOT see her winning her claim as a Civil Rights Violation. Having a bad credit rating is NOT evidence of being in a "Protected Class" (Which under Federal Law, forbids discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, age, family status (if you have children), Disability, or religion (I am going by memory, the exact list is on the net). Thus I do NOT expect her to prevail on the Civil Rights Claim
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968On the other hand, she had been given a firm job offer and had quit her job knowing she had a new job. The job offer was withdrawn AFTER she had accepted it. She also undertook expenses tied in with accepting the job that was later withdrawn.
The employer is going to claim the "At Will" Doctrine ,i.e. an employer and an employer can end any employment contract at any time for any reason (Except an illegal reason, see the Civil Rights law above and other laws). The plaintiff can said, yes, that is true BUT SHE INCURRED COSTS WHEN SHE ACCEPTED THE JOB, COST THE EMPLOYER KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN SHE WOULD HAVE INCURRED. Her claim is thus Contractual not Civil Rights. On this claim, she has a strong case, an employment contract had been entered into and then breeched by the Employer AND do to that Breech she incurred losses. She had a duty to minimize her loss (She found employment after four months on unemployment) but that still leaves the four months she was without a job AND the difference in salary between the job offered and then withdrawn and her new job.
Interesting case, I would have added the Civil Rights Angle to the Contractual dispute, but I would concentrate on the Contractual dispute, using the Civil Right Case to show WHY the breech occurred. It would be good if the Civil Rights Act would be extended to include credit histories, but as a general rule such an expansion of the people in "Protected Classes" is left to the Federal Congress, State Legislatures or local Governments. On the other hand we have a clear breech of a contract, the employer withdrew an offer of employment based on a credit report AFTER the offer had been made and accepted. The only restriction on such a claim is the "At Will" Doctrine AND the non-breeching sides duty to minimize her loss.
As to the "At Will" Doctrine, the issue is not that the employer hired her and then fired her, but made and offer and withdrew it AFTER she had accepted it, quit her previous job and incurred other expenses. She did NOT incur those expense just to get unemployment but to hold the job AND it was cost she incurred do to the withdraw of the employment offer AFTER she had accepted it. The Employer will have to pay something, the only issue is how much.