The question in this case is whether the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) allows employers to refuse to rehire employees who were convicted of crimes during their initial term of employment.
The NYSHRL bars employers from discriminating against prospective employees based on prior convictions. The applicable provision, codified at Executive Law ยง296(15), make it “unlawful” for an employer “to deny any license or employment to any individual by reason of his or her having been convicted of one or more criminal offenses . . . when such denial is in violation of the provisions of article twenty-three-A of the correction law.”
Correction Law article 23-A, in turn, bars employers from denying or “acting . . . adversely” on an employment application or “employment or license held by an individual” based on a previous conviction, except when there is a link between the criminal offense and the employment, or when employing the individual would pose an “unreasonable risk” to safety or property.
This case implicates these provisions. Richard Sassi was working for Mobile Life Support Services in 2016, when he was convicted of a misdemeanor and sentenced to 60 days in prison. After his release, Mobile Life refused to rehire him. Sassi then sued, claiming that Mobile Life’s refusal to rehire him violated the NYSHRL.
Supreme Court dismissed Sassi’s complaint. The court observed that the plain language of the NYSHRL and Correction Law refer only to past convictions: the NYSHRL bars firings based on “having been convicted,” and the Correction Law bars firings based on “having been previously convicted.” It then held that because Sassi was convicted while working for Mobile Life Services, his conviction was not the sort of “previous” conviction to which the NYSHRL applies. The court rejected Sassi’s argument that his conviction constituted a “previous” conviction because it occurred before he applied for reemployment upon his release from prison.
The Second Department unanimously affirmed. It held that Supreme Court properly applied the motion-to-dismiss standard and concluded that Stassi failed to state a cause of action.
The Court of Appeals granted Sassi leave to appeal.
Return to the case page for Sassi v. Mobile Life Support Services, Inc.