E.D.N.Y. Finds No Per Se Violation of New York Correction Law Where Employer Failed to Conduct Required Analysis

Griffin v. Sirva, Inc., et al., No. 11-CV-1844 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y. May 29, 2014): Plaintiffs, who were residential movers, alleged that their employer unlawfully terminated their employment due to criminal convictions for sex offenses in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Under Article 23A of the New York Correction Law, employers are required to conduct an assessment of eight factors prior to taking an adverse employment action based on a previous criminal conviction. Those factors include the amount of time elapsed since the offense, the seriousness of the offense, and the age of the person at the time the offense occurred. In moving for summary judgment, the plaintiffs argued that their employer’s failure to conduct an individualized analysis as required by Article 23A was a per se violation of the NYSHRL. The court disagreed. Although it was undisputed that the employer did not evaluate the required factors, the court found that “it does not follow that a violation of the [New York Correction Law] is a per se violation of the NYSHRL.” Instead, the court evaluated whether the employer would have terminated the plaintiffs had it applied the factors. That analysis required an inquiry of disputed facts and therefore the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion was denied. 

This decision demonstrates that an employer’s failure to consider the factors enumerated in Article 23A of the New York Correction Law prior to taking an adverse employment action may not necessarily be discriminatory. However, employers should keep in mind that the decision was rendered on the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion and therefore under a favorable standard to the employer’s defense. Further, under the court’s reasoning, a jury must independently evaluate the factors to determine if they would have been applied correctly had the employer done so. Employers should therefore continue to review and carefully document their consideration of Article 23A prior to making any employment decisions based upon applicants or employees’ prior criminal history. 

Note: This article was published in the June 30, 2014 issue of the New York eAuthority.


Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.