Source: https://www.newyorkemploymentattorney-blog.com/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 21:09:04+00:00

Document:
Race discrimination in employment is not limited to overt expressions of bias. It can be more subtle, particularly when an individual’s expression of their racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is involved. This often occurs with regard to hairstyles. Antidiscrimination statutes like the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and other factors. The city’s Commission on Human Rights (CHR) recently issued new guidelines that address how anti-Black racism in employment can manifest as complaints about employee hairstyles. A review of court decisions around the country show some recognition of hairstyle discrimination, but New York City race discrimination attorneys should look first to the NYCHRL and the CHR’s guidelines.
In the context of the new guidelines, the CHR defines “Black” to include individuals “who identify as African, African American, Afro-Caribbean, [or] Afro-Latin-x/a/o.” It identifies hairstyles commonly associated with Black people’s “racial, ethnic, or cultural identities” as including “locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, fades, [and] Afros.” The guidelines state that “Black hairstyles are…an inherent part of Black identity,” and are therefore protected by the NYCHRL.
Some courts around the country have recognized race discrimination claims based on employers’ alleged treatment of employees’ hairstyles. A plaintiff alleged that her employer began discriminating against her after she began wearing her hair in an “Afro” style in Jenkins v. Blue Cross Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 538 F. 2d 164 (7th Cir. 1976). The court, in recounting how the defendant allegedly expressed its objection to the plaintiff’s hairstyle, noted that “[a] lay person’s description of racial discrimination could hardly be more explicit.” Id. at 168. It went on to find that “[t]he reference to the Afro hairstyle” was an expression of “the employer’s racial discrimination.” Id.
New York City extends protections against employment discrimination to individuals with criminal records, who often find themselves excluded from job opportunities. New York City employment discrimination attorneys may draw upon city and state law in support of these claims. A lawsuit that worked its way through multiple New York courts alleged aider and abettor liability under state law against a company that hired the plaintiffs’ employer as an independent contractor. The case began in a Brooklyn federal district court in 2011, and returned there in 2018 after rulings from both the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the New York Court of Appeals. The district judge ultimately ruled against the plaintiffs in their aider and abettor claims in Griffin v. Sirva, Inc., 291 F.Supp.3d 245 (E.D.N.Y. 2018), but the ruling offers a useful overview of how such a claim might work.
Both the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) generally prohibit discriminating against a job applicant on the basis of criminal history unless they follow specific provisions found elsewhere in state law. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(10)(a), N.Y. Exec. L. § 296(15). Article 23-A of the New York Corrections Law requires employers to consider factors like the severity of the offense, the amount of time that has elapsed since the offense and conviction, and the extent to which the offense has any bearing on the position sought by the applicant. N.Y. Corr. L. § 753(1). Aiding and abetting a violation of either statute is considered a distinct unlawful discriminatory practice. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(6), N.Y. Exec. L. § 296(6).
The plaintiffs in Griffin were employed by a company that “provides local warehouse services and transportation services.” Griffin, 291 F.Supp.3d at 248. The defendant hired the company as an independent contractor. The contract required the plaintiffs’ employer to comply with a “Certified Labor Program,” which reportedly involved criminal background checks that automatically excluded people with certain convictions. Id. The plaintiffs alleged that they were terminated by their employer after they did not pass this background check. They sued their employer and the defendant. They alleged that the defendant was a joint employer liable for aiding and abetting under the NYSHRL.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 8
 § 296
 § 753
 § 8
 § 296