Case Information
*1 ‐ 1307 v. Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ____________________ August Term, (Argued: January Decided: 2017) Docket ____________________
TRATHONY GRIFFIN MICHAEL
GODWIN, Appellants,
SIRVA INC. ALLIED VAN LINES, INC.,
Defendants Appellees .
____________________
Before: POOLER, HALL, CARNEY, Circuit Judges .
Appeal United States District Eastern District (Brodie, J .) granting favor defendants appellees Van Lines, denying plaintiffs appellants *2 Trathony Griffin and Michael Godwin’s motion partial summary judgment. Griffin and Godwin’s direct Astro Moving and Storage Co. (“Astro”), not a party this appeal, terminated and Godwin after discovering their past criminal convictions through background check. Astro signed contract Allied prohibited any convicted certain crimes working on Allied jobs, and allege Allied Inc., Allied’s parent, can held Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law § et seq., on basis their criminal convictions. In its ruling on parties’ cross motions judgment, Sirva were not Godwin’s “direct employer[s],” therefore could “deny[ing] employment” conviction. CV *11 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (discussing 296(15)). Appeals, upon receiving Court’s three questions instant case, has provided guidance *3 application of Sections of New State Human Rights Law. Based guidance, we vacate court’s grant remand proceedings consistent opinion Appeals.
Vacated Remanded.
____________________
STUART LICHTEN, Lichten & Bright, P.C., York, NY, Appellants.
GEORGE W. WRIGHT, George W. Wright & Associates, LLC, York, NY, Defendants Appellees.
PER CURIAM:
This appeal presents who may held Law (“NYSHRL”), prohibits denial conviction, imposes aiding abetting violation 296(15). 296(6), (15). *4 ‐ appellants Trathony Griffin and Michael Godwin (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) are two former employees Astro Moving and Storage Co. (“Astro”), which provides certain moving and storage services contract defendant appellee Allied Van Lines, (“Allied”). and Godwin’s direct Astro, party appeal, terminated Godwin after discovering their past criminal convictions through background check. Astro signed contract Allied prohibited any convicted certain crimes working jobs, allege defendant appellee Inc., Allied’s parent company, can et seq., their convictions. United States District Eastern District (Brodie, J. ) denied Plaintiffs’ motion partial summary granted Allied’s motion judgment. determined applied only “employer.” CV *11 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). *5 district court examined variety cases discussing how an entity is determined be an individual’s “employer.” id. *11–*13. were not employed by either district court determined Sirva could NYSHRL Astro’s termination Godwin. *14.
On August 30, 2016, this Court entered an certifying three questions Appeals: First, does Section limit liability unlawful denial only aggrieved party’s “employer”? Second, if Section is limited in way, how courts determine whether an entity “employer” purposes claim Section 296(15)? Third, does “aiding abetting” provision 296(6), apply such non employer as aider abettor an employer’s unlawful denial employment? v. , F.3d 283, (2d Cir. 2016).
On May 2017, issued its decision response Court’s certified questions. ‐‐‐ (N.Y. 2017). answered first affirmative, had, *6 holding is limited an aggrieved party’s employer. Id. , slip op. at 4; see , at *10–*11.
With respect the second question, the York of Appeals reformulated the posed as: “if is limited an how courts determine whether an entity is aggrieved party’s ‘employer’ purposes claim 296(15)?” , ‐‐‐ , slip op. (brackets omitted). Based York law, identified four factors use determining whether an entity an employer: “(1) selection engagement servant; (2) payment salary wages; (3) power dismissal; (4) power control servant’s conduct.” 12–13 (citing Div. Human Rights GTE Corp. A.D.2d (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep’t 1985)). concluded “common law principles, discussed GTE determine as employer [S]ection [New State] Law, greatest emphasis placed alleged employer’s power control *7 employee his or her performance work.” ‐‐‐ slip op. at (internal quotation marks omitted).
With respect third question, York Court Appeals reformulated question posed follows: “whether [S]ection extends liability out state nonemployer aids abets against with prior conviction.” Id. 14. Appeals answered affirmative. Id. decided that district court read too narrowly, explained that “Section extends persons entities beyond joint employers,” “Section . . . applies out state defendants,” “provision construed broadly.” 15.
Accordingly, we VACATE extent it conflicts decision REMAND further proceedings.