Fired after background check comes in

[longneck]

YAG,
Lets say, hypothetically, the OP's brother worked at the branch office of employer in NY, however, the corporate office is headquartered in CA. Would NY still remain the proper venue for filing?

you're kidding, right? you go to all this trouble to show your might with the EEOC regs, and you don't even know one of the basic HR fundamentals? state employement law is derived from the state of the worker, not the headquarters of the company. if that were not true, then, by extension, a chinese company wouldn't even have to follow federal employment law for their US employees!

give me a break!

 

[You Are Guilty]

YAG,
Lets say, hypothetically, the OP's brother worked at the branch office of employer in NY, however, the corporate office is headquartered in CA. Would NY still remain the proper venue for filing?

As noted, NYS has jurisdiction over any actions taken within the state's borders. (Further, having had to deal with them on all too many occasions, I can state from personal knowledge that they are only too happy to take cases, even ones where their jurisdiction is questionable.)

 

[CO19]

As noted, NYS has jurisdiction over any actions taken within the state's borders. (Further, having had to deal with them on all too many occasions, I can state from personal knowledge that they are only too happy to take cases, even ones where their jurisdiction is questionable.)

That was also my hunch. However, you being an attorney from NY, you may be familiar with the the Obabueki v. Choicepoint, Inc., 99 Civ 11262, 145 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D. N.Y.) case which was about a GA based company conducting a pre-employment screening on a CT resident for a job in NY that involved a CA criminal search that was incorrectly reported under the laws of CA. Thus, state/federal laws were violated. It was a classic case about governing jurisdiction.... thanks for your reply.

 

[You Are Guilty]

That was also my hunch. However, you being an attorney from NY, you may be familiar with the the Obabueki v. Choicepoint, Inc., 99 Civ 11262, 145 F. Supp. 2d 371 (S.D. N.Y.) case which was about a GA based company conducting a pre-employment screening on a CT resident for a job in NY that involved a CA criminal search that was incorrectly reported under the laws of CA. Thus, state/federal laws were violated. It was a classic case about governing jurisdiction.... thanks for your reply.

Well, as it so happens, yes, I have every NYS and 2nd Circuit case memorized , and I thus am eminently familiar with this one. First, this "classic" case is actually part of Obabueki v. Choicepoint, Inc., 236 F.Supp.2d 278, which was decided a year later. It was also cited only 6 times since then, 2 of which were cases that have been overruled, and of the remaining 4, three had to do with a finding of "unclean hands", and the remaining cite was for a point about the FCRA. (For purposes of brevity, I'll ignore that this is a Southern District case and not from a state court.)

However, with that bit of housekeeping out of the way, if you had actually read the case instead of googling it, you would have noticed that the statutes going to the alleged discrimination based on criminal history were State based, to wit "in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 296(15), 296(16) ("Sections 296(15) and 296(16)")".

As noted, the lone Federal statute in that case is "15 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq", more commonly known as the FCRA. Unfortunately, the FCRA has absolutely no bearing on employment discrimination claims based on criminal records, and was only in the case because plaintiff alleged that IBM failed to obtain a certification, an argument that the court pointed out was moot as it was only the credit agency who had a duty to do so.

To save time in the future, if you are going to cite cases that have absolutely no bearing on your arguments, I'm sure we'd all appreciate if you would just make them up using funny-sounding names, like Prince v. Purple Rain, or USA v. $80,180.00 in US Currency. (OK, I lied, that last one is a real case). Thanks.

 

[CO19]

However, with that bit of housekeeping out of the way, if you had actually read the case instead of googling it,

> Google it? LOL... nope, didn't "google" to find. This case was discussed in at an HR conference I attended specifically b/c of jursidictional elements since states can, and do, have conflicting laws. You completely missed the point why I referenced this, so will refrain from replying to the rest of your response.

 

[You Are Guilty]

However, with that bit of housekeeping out of the way, if you had actually read the case instead of googling it,

> Google it? LOL... nope, didn't "google" to find. This case was discussed in at an HR conference I attended specifically b/c of jursidictional elements since states can, and do, have conflicting laws. You completely missed the point why I referenced this, so will refrain from replying to the rest of your response.

Oh, so you actually intended to cite a case that supported my argument (i.e. NYS has jurisdiction)? Quite a unique method of debate. Keep up the good work!

 

[mycarlb]

I wanted to let everybody know that my brother found an incredible staffing agency that has helped him find a great job as a telecommunications troubleshooter!! I am so happy that I wanted to share this with all you wonderful people how helped me and to let others know that even if you have a checkered past, if you have turned your life around .. there is hope.

This agency knew every terrible detail of his past because he brought in a copy of the report that got him fired from that last job... and they found a company that didn't require background checks... he starts Monday!

Thank you again.. and by the way... he chose not to pursue the other company... he was just too embarrassed and wanted to let it go... Thanks again!!!

whooohooo