Before The

Before theFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONWashington, D.C. 20554In the Matter of the Petition of))iHire, LLC) CG Docket) No. 02-278for Declaratory Ruling Stating that ResumesSent in Response to Online Job PostingRequesting Faxed Resumes are Not FaxAdvertisements Subject to theTelephone Consumer Protection Act))))))PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULINGOFiHire, LLCShawn C. WhittakerWhittaker & Associates, P.C.1010 Rockville PikeSuite 607Rockville, Maryland 20852Phone: (301) 838-4502Fax: (301) 838-4505For PetitionersJune 20, 2011

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY eapparent controversy and remove any ambiguity that the practiceof a third party faxing resumes of individual job applicants inresponse to an help wanted Craigslist postings requesting faxedresumes from applicants does not violate the Telephone ConsumerProtection Act("TCPA")The1.Commissionshould declarethatsuch faxes are not advertisements under the TCPA 2 and as such donot require an opt-out provision 3 after "Baltimore lleged violations of the TCPA.an action against& Shietel,suit againstMarylandP.A.iHire inforthreeBaltimore Podiatry also filediHire in the District Court of Maryland forBaltimore County allegingthreeotherfaxessentby iHiretoBaltimore Podiatry in response to the same violated the TCPA. asemedical147 U.S.C. § 227247 U.S.C. § 227(a) (5)47 U.S.C. §227(b) (1) (C)Case No. 0804000066420104straightadvertisementThrough the reinternetitsfrontwebsiteoffice.Baltimore Podiatry requested resumes

be sent via facsimile to Baltimore Podiatry.The advertisementcontained Baltimore Podiatry's facsimile number.In response, iHire faxed summary resumes of three differentqualified candidates to Baltimore Podiatry on August 2009 and January 15,2010BaltimoreEachPodiatry.19,2009.TheDistrict Court action.onDecember 23,2009,for three differentofthefaxesDecember 31,candidates whomencouragedBaltimorePodiatry to contact the individual applicants directly.All candidate on iHire's website,as well as a notice containing ailaddress where Baltimore Podiatry could contact iHire if it didnot wish to receive resumes from iHire in the future.iHireis an odiatry.The facsimiles did not provide information regardingiHire other providedBaltimoreainformationThefilledbyiHire websitepotentialBaltimorewherethecandidate's full resume could be viewed, iHire's membership withtheBetter BusinessBureauandinformation onhowtocontactiHire if Baltimore Podiatry no longer wished to receive resumes.

Infact,BaltimorePodiatrycandidates directly,wasencouragedtorather than through iHire.contacttheiHire receivedno compensation for sending the resumes for the applicants ry hired any of the itmoreno way would advertisementsunderthesentTCPATCPAonlyapplies to property, goods, or services.The TCPA does not prohibit all "unsolicited information orcommunications" . tedThe TCPA defines an unsolicited advertisement as"any material advertising the commercial availability or qualityof any property,goods,personthatwithoutor services which is transmitted to anyperson'spriorexpressinvitationorpermission, in writing or tion. mentLutz v. Curry, et al., 859 F. Supp. 180, 182 (E.D. Pa. 1994)647 U.S.C.S. § 227(a) (5)7 Phillips Randolph Enterprises, LLC v. Adler-Weiner ResearchChicago, Inc., 526 F. Supp. 2d 851, 853 (N.D. Ill. 2007)5an

opportunities are not unsolicited advertisements under the TCPA. tedadvertisementsforor services and an advertisement for employmentis none of the three.Itisimportantpersonal activity.todistinguishcommercialfromHere, the resumes submitted for employment arefor personal services, not commercial theThe TCPA does notabsenceofastateddefinition in the statute, courts should discern the plain meaningof the language.The cardinal rule of statutory interpretation isto ascertain and effectuate the intent of the statute beginningand ending with the plain tisementaif the statute is clear rcialbeingconcernedavailability of property, goods or services. 9OxfordDictionarywith commercedefines"commercial"as(the activity of buying and selling)and making orintending to make a profit. 10The summary resumes that iHire heinformation about applicantscontainsummaryforaanyresumesjob opening,advertisingonlyforcontainedwhich could at859 F. Supp. at 1819 47 U.S.C. § 227 (a) (5)lOhttp://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m en us1234743#m en us1234743S

icants were not intending to make a profit and therefore theresumes are not invitation. ed responses and bore the risk that not all respondents egardingemployment opportunities are not unsolicited advertisements undertheTCPA. 12Further,services. 13iHireemploymentassertsopportunities are ,togoods,oremploymentbut instead simplyinformational notices.Ultimately,fromplacingthe intent of the TCPA was to prevent companiesthefinancialburdensrecipients of the advertisements. 14ofadvertisingontheTherefore, communications thatmerely contain information do not violate the TCPA. 15Even whenthat same communication contains an incidental advertisement, thatincidental advertisement does not convert the entire communicationinto an advertisement. 1611 Phillips Randolph Enterprises, LLC v. Adler-Weiner ResearchChicago, Inc., 526 F. Supp. 2d 851, 853 (N.D. Ill. 2007)12 Lutz v. Curry, et al., 859 F. Supp. 180, 18213 Id.14 Destination Ventures, 46 F.3d at 56.15 Stern v. Bluestone, 12 N.Y.3d 873, 875 (N.Y. 2009)16 Id. at 875-876.

ployeesTheresponse.thosetotheBaltimore PodiatryandsummaryiHireresumesadvertise the commercial availability of any property,provideddidnotgoods oriHire merely provided information regarding candidatesservices.seeking positions at Baltimore Podiatry.iHire even encouragedBaltimore Podiatry to contact the candidates directly.in the faxes,chargeAs notediHire does not charge the recipient of the fax anyfee if they contact or hire the candidate.notaseekinginvitationgeneral public to respond without n addition, iHire etoBaltimorePodiatrydidnotadvertise the commercial availability or quality of any property,goodsorTheservices.faxesapplicants for a job opening.containedindividualresumesofResumes are not advertisements ofcommercially available property, goods or rePodiatry do not qualify as advertisements, as they did not Therefore,iHire requests that the FCC find that the faxes sent by iHire to

Baltimore Podiatry are not advertisements and are not required bythe TCPA to contain the compulsory opt-out hemeaning of the TePA would require everyone responding to a helpwanted posting to include an opt-out notice.Ruling that resumes are advertisements under the meaning oftheTCPAimplicationsTCPAisto. .t s. 17reclplenwouldcreateneverunseenintended someThe purposeadvertisingcostsofthetofaxBy ruling that resumes are advertisements, the FCCwould place the onus on all potential job seekers to include thestatutorilymandatedpotential employers.opt-outclassesofinallresumesfaxedtoSuch an outcome does not further the TCPA.The TCPA includes acertainnoticeprovision allowing thesmallbusinesssendersfromFCC to exempttheopt-outrequirements if the FCC determines that the costs of complianceare unduly burdensome given the revenues generated by such smallbusinesses. articularlyemployment becauseindividualsofindividualslackthosethey alswhowithareunemployed or underemployed.knowledgeoftheTCPAandDestination Ventures, Ltd. v. FCC, 46 F.3d 54, 5647 U.S.C. § 227 (b) (D) (iv) (II)thethanTCPAseekingMostopt-out

requirements because most individuals are not aware of the agetoinclude in their faxed resumes.The myriad requirements of the opt-out provision of the TCPAand FCC regulations make compliance for an individual job seekerunrealistic and impractical.For example,individual job seekersare not likely to have the resources necessary to provide a costfree mechanism for fax recipients to make an opt-out request 24hours a day, 7 days a week. 19IF the FCC ruled that faxed resumes were advertisements underthe TCPA, it would require individual,This is exactly what iHire has been sued for.with the TCPA.Sucharulingdiscouragingjob seekers, to now complywouldstifleindividualsIndi viduals will thforviajobsbyfax.to potential employers out offear of liability for failure to comply properly with the TCPA,whichasstatedaboveindividual job seekers.nottheintentinclusionofbusinesses. 2o192047 C. F. R.Id.wouldparticularlydifficultforThis unforeseen consequence is certainlyof Congress,thebeexemptionwhich isforagain evidenced by theircertainclassesofsmallIndividual job seekers should not bear the burden of§64.1200(a) (iii)(E)

regulation that was originally intended to protect fax recipientsfrom the financial burdens of advertisers.21III. Conclusion.The plain language of the TCPA and several judicial essentresponse to online job postings requesting faxed resumes,ineven ifsubmitted by a third party on the individual job seeker's behalf,are not advertisements under the meaning of the TCPA and do notrequire opt-out provisions.scopeofintended.liabilityunderTo find otherwise would broaden thetheTCPApastFor the reasons stated above,whatwasoriginallyiHire requests that theFCC enter a declaratory ruling that faxed resumes sent in responseto an online posting,individual's behalf,even if submitted by a third party on thedo notconstitute advertisements underthemeaning of the TCPA and do not require an opt-out provision.Whittaker & Associates, PC1010 Rockville Pike, Suite 607Rockville, MD 20852Phone: (301) 838-4502Fax: (301) 838-45052146 F.3d 54, 56

the TCPA to contain the compulsory opt-out notice. B. Ruling that resumes are advertisements within the meaning of the TePA would require everyone responding to a help wanted posting to include an opt-outnotice. Ruling that resumes are advertisements under the meaning