'Ban-the-Box' Laws: From NYC to Buffalo, and Everywhere in Between
This article aims to shed light on these practical issues by individually detailing the relevant state and local "ban-the-box" laws in New York; and outlining a practical approach for compliance with these laws in the modern workplace.
November 04, 2024 at 08:00 AM
10 minute read
Special SectionsThe practice of "banning the box" by removing criminal history inquiries from employment applications is trending nationally with no signs of slowing. In New York, legislation at both the state and local level has been robust, particularly so in New York City. These various limits on employer criminal record inquiries produce a breeding ground of confusion and compliance concerns for employers, including in the context of remote work environments. This article aims to shed light on these practical issues by individually detailing the relevant state and local "ban-the-box" laws in New York; and outlining a practical approach for compliance with these laws in the modern workplace.
Relevant State Protections
Although New York state law does not explicitly "ban-the-box," as discussed below, state law does prohibit employers from making certain inquires and circumscribes how they utilize information about an employee's criminal history. In addition, both federal and state law require applicant consent before an employer can run a third-party criminal background check and require employers to provide adverse action letters for applicant consideration or response prior to denying employment based on information contained in a consumer report. These restrictions serve as the backdrop to a variety of local ban-the-box laws in New York.
- New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) Section 296(16)
The NYSHRL prohibits all employers from considering or inquiring into: nonpending criminal arrests or accusations that did not result in conviction; youthful offender adjudications; and sealed convictions. See N.Y. Exec. Law Section 296(16).
- New York Correctional Law Article 23-A
The New York Correctional Law prohibits private employers with 10 or more employees from denying employment to an applicant or adversely acting against a current employee based on a previous criminal conviction unless: there is a direct relationship between the previous criminal conviction and the job; or granting or continuing employment involves an unreasonable risk to property or the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public. See N.Y. Corr. Law Section 752. To reach either of these determinations, N.Y. Corr. Law Section 753 requires an employer to conduct an individualized assessment of the following eight factors:
- The public policy of New York State to encourage the licensure and employment of persons previously convicted of one or more criminal offenses;
- The specific duties and responsibilities necessarily related to the employment sought or held by the person;
- The bearing, if any, the criminal offense or offenses the person was previously convicted of will have on the person's fitness or ability to perform one or more such duties or responsibilities;
- The time that has elapsed since the occurrence of the criminal offense or offenses (not the time since arrest or conviction);
- The age of the person at the time of the criminal offense or offenses (not the age at arrest or conviction);
- The seriousness of the offense or offenses;
- Any information produced by the person, or on the person's behalf, in regard to their rehabilitation or good conduct; and
- The legitimate interest of the employer in protecting property and the safety and welfare of specific individuals or the general public.
At the conclusion of such analysis, the law requires consideration of whether the person has a certificate or relief from disabilities or good conduct, which create a presumption of rehabilitation.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250