In 2006, Madeline Acosta started a part-time clerical position with the Cooke Center for Learning and Development, which had a contract with the New York City Department of Education (DOE) to provide pre-school education.
Three months into her employment, when her supervisor insisted that Acosta undergo a background check, the DOE denied clearance because Acosta had been convicted of first-degree robbery some thirteen years earlier.
When the Cook Center ended her employment, Acosta sued both the Center and the DOE.
After the New York County Supreme Court dismissed her case, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed on the grounds that the DOE had acted "arbitrarily and capriciously." And, on further appeal, while the Court of Appeals agreed there had been some agency-related misconduct, it opted to let the Center out of the case.
As a general rule, it's unlawful for a private or public employer to deny an employment application on the grounds the applicant was previously convicted of a crime. While the DOE purportedly relied upon an exception, there were a number of factors which needed to be considered before that exception applied.
Although the DOE wasn't required to offer a reason, it was required to consider any documentation submitted in support of the application. Since the evidence showed that Acosta submitted a personal statement, documents and letters of reference which demonstrated that, in the ten years since she completed her prison sentence, she had earned a bachelor's degree, volunteered with an organization that helped inmates develop skills for reintegration into society, started a family, worked at two separate law firms and remained a productive, law-abiding member of society, our state's highest court thought DOE's review comprised nothing more than a "pro forma denial."
Don't judge the grown by the acts of their youth.
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Acosta v. New York City Dept. of Educ.