Franklin v. Vertex Global Solutions, Inc.

Background

Henry Franklin sued Vertex Global Solutions, Inc. and Fresh Direct, LLC under New York City’s Human Rights Law, as amended by the Fair Chance Act. He brought the case on behalf of himself and a proposed class of similarly situated job applicants. He alleged that the defendants’ hiring process discriminated against applicants with criminal histories by investigating criminal backgrounds before making a genuine conditional offer of employment and by denying him employment without following the required process.

Franklin alleged that he attended a recruiting event at a Fresh Direct facility, where applicants received and signed a form stating that Vertex was making a conditional offer of employment. The form said the offer depended on a satisfactory pre-employment screening process, including a criminal-background check and other checks. About six minutes later, Franklin signed a background-check release. He was later notified that the background check had disclosed a criminal record, and he never heard from the defendants again.

Franklin claimed that the conditional offer was a sham designed to allow the defendants to investigate criminal histories prematurely. He also alleged that Vertex and Fresh Direct jointly recruited workers, that Vertex employees would provide services to Fresh Direct under its supervision, and that successful Vertex workers could later receive direct employment offers from Fresh Direct.

Defendants’ Motions

Vertex and Fresh Direct each moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The defendants argued that their hiring practices complied with the Fair Chance Act because the background check followed the written conditional offer. Fresh Direct separately argued that Franklin had not alleged enough facts connecting it to his application or to Vertex’s alleged conduct.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Franklin plausibly alleged that the defendants had not made a genuine conditional offer before asking about his criminal history. The court considered the alleged sequence of events: applicants attended a group presentation, received offers without individualized questioning, signed the offers, and were immediately given background-check forms. The court found that the six-minute gap and the group distribution of the forms supported an inference that the process was designed to screen out applicants with criminal records.

The court rejected the argument that the written label “conditional offer” controlled regardless of the surrounding facts. It explained that the substance and context of the offer mattered. The offer also allowed rescission based on information such as employment history, education records, and authorization to work in the United States—information the court said employers could generally be expected to investigate before making a conditional offer. The court stated that this language further supported Franklin’s allegation that the offer was only a formality.

The court did not decide whether the defendants separately violated the Fair Chance Act by withdrawing the offer without completing the required process for evaluating a criminal record. It said that Franklin could continue to assert that argument later. The court also noted that questions about whether Franklin’s alleged answer on the background-check form affected his ability to represent a proposed class were more appropriate for a later class-certification motion.

As to Fresh Direct, the court found that Franklin plausibly alleged a joint-employer relationship. Relevant allegations included Vertex’s staffing relationship with Fresh Direct, the recruiting event at Fresh Direct’s facility, the use of materials bearing both companies’ names, Fresh Direct’s alleged supervision of Vertex workers, and the possibility that Vertex workers would later become Fresh Direct employees. The court also found that Franklin plausibly alleged Fresh Direct aided and abetted Vertex’s conduct because Fresh Direct allegedly provided its facility for the hiring process and may have known about or approved the process.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied Vertex’s and Fresh Direct’s motions to dismiss in full. The defendants were ordered to answer the Amended Complaint by March 9, 2022, and the parties were directed to submit a proposed case-management plan and joint status letter. The court terminated the pending motions. This order decided only whether Franklin’s allegations were sufficient to proceed; it did not determine ultimate liability, class certification, or whether the alleged statutory violations would be proven.