As we explained in our case summary, the issue in this case was whether the New York State Human Rights Law allows employers to refuse to hire employees who were convicted of crimes during their initial terms of employment. In a unanimous decision, the Court (DiFiore, C.J.) held that the Human Rights Law’s restriction on refusing to hire employees previously convicted of crimes applies to employees convicted during their initial term of employment if those employees reapply for their jobs after they are convicted.
Richard Sassi was a former police officer who worked for Mobile Life Support Services. While working for Mobile Life, Sassi was convicted of a misdemeanor and was sentenced to sixty days in prison. While Sassi was incarcerated, Mobile Life fired him for “job abandonment.” When he was released from prison, he spoke with a Mobile Life employee who said that he wanted Sassi to return to work but that others at Mobile Life did not.
Sassi then sued under the Human Rights Law (codified at Executive Law § 296(15)) provision making it “an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person . . . to deny any license or employment to any individual by reason of [that person’s] having been convicted of one or more criminal offenses,” in violation of Corrections Law article 23-a. Article 23-a, in turn, makes it unlawful to deny a job “application” based on the applicant’s “previously having been convicted of a crime.”
Mobile Life moved to dismiss, arguing that the Human Rights Law did not apply, because Sassi was fired after he was convicted. Mobile Life thus contended that by firing Sassi, it did not deny his “application” to work for Mobile Life.
Construing Sassi’s allegations liberally, the Court rejected that argument. It acknowledged that although the statute would not have barred Mobile Life from firing Sassi if, because he was incarcerated, he could not report to work. But it ruled that Sassi’s complaint could be read as alleging that he applied to be hired by Mobile Life a second time when he spoke with a Mobile Life employee after he was released from prison.
Judge Garcia concurred. He sought to clarify the standards under the Human Rights Law. First, he stressed that a plaintiff does not have a claim for termination based on a prior conviction. A plaintiff may sue only for if an employer rejects a job application. Second, he emphasized that a claim will lie only if the plaintiff was applying for an open position. Third, he noted that the applicant’s prior employment history would be relevant in determining whether the applicant was denied a job because of the prior conviction. So here, Sassi’s “job abandonment” might be relevant, in Judge Garcia’s view, even though that abandonment was a result of his incarceration.