## Facts

- Trathony Griffin and Michael Godwin worked as laborers for Astro Moving and Storage Co., Inc., a New York moving company.
- Both employees had prior convictions for sexual offenses.
- Astro contracted with Allied Van Lines, Inc. (a Sirva, Inc. subsidiary) to perform moving services; a large portion of Astro’s business was performed for Allied.
- The contract required Astro to comply with Allied’s Certified Labor Program (CLP), including criminal background screening by an Allied-approved vendor.
- Under the CLP, certain convictions—particularly sexual offenses—were categorically disqualifying for workers performing services in customers’ homes or businesses.
- Griffin and Godwin consented to background checks by Sirva and/or its agents; the checks revealed their convictions, and Astro terminated them.
- The employees sued Astro, Allied, and Sirva in federal court alleging, among other claims, discrimination based on criminal convictions under NYSHRL Executive Law § 296(15) and aiding-and-abetting liability under § 296(6).
- The federal district court granted summary judgment to Allied and Sirva, concluding they were not the employees’ “employers” under § 296(15) and did not directly participate in the terminations for § 296(6) purposes.
- The Second Circuit certified questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the scope of § 296(15), the standard for “employer” status, and whether § 296(6) can reach out-of-state nonemployers.

## Issues

1. Whether liability under NYSHRL § 296(15) for conviction-based employment discrimination is limited to the aggrieved party’s “employer.”
2. What legal standard governs whether an entity is an “employer” for purposes of NYSHRL § 296(15).
3. Whether NYSHRL § 296(6) permits aiding-and-abetting liability for an out-of-state nonemployer that assists or compels conviction-based employment discrimination prohibited by § 296(15).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held that NYSHRL § 296(15) limits employment-discrimination liability to the aggrieved party’s employer.
- The court adopted common-law agency principles for employer status under § 296(15), emphasizing the alleged employer’s power to order and control the employee’s work.
- The court held that NYSHRL § 296(6) may impose aiding-and-abetting liability on out-of-state nonemployers, provided there is an underlying NYSHRL violation and a sufficient New York connection to avoid impermissible extraterritorial application.
- The court answered the certified questions and left application of the standards (including whether Allied or Sirva qualified as employers or aiders/abettors on the facts) to the federal courts.

## Legal Principles

- NYSHRL Executive Law § 296(15), in the employment context, imposes liability only on an aggrieved party’s employer.
- Employer status under § 296(15) is determined by common-law agency factors, with primary weight on the right to order and control the employee’s performance of work (including indicia such as authority over hiring/firing, supervision, and work assignments).
- Contractual influence or economic leverage over another company does not, by itself, establish employer status absent control over the means and manner of the employee’s work.
- NYSHRL Executive Law § 296(6) applies to “any person,” is not limited to employers, and can reach out-of-state actors when their conduct has an adequate New York nexus.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability under § 296(6) requires an underlying primary violation and actual participation in the discriminatory conduct; mere awareness or passive approval is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court clarified that conviction-based employment discrimination claims under NYSHRL § 296(15) may be brought only against the plaintiff’s employer under a control-focused common-law test, while § 296(6) can extend to out-of-state nonemployers who actually participate in or compel discriminatory practices affecting New York employees.


Griffin v. Sirva, Inc., 29 N.Y.3d 174 (N.Y. 2017)