United States District Court, S.D. New York
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge
Ryan Van Beek brings claims under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and New
York state law against defendant Professional Data Systems,
Inc. (“PDS”), alleging PDS wrongfully terminated
him on the basis of a prior misdemeanor conviction.
pending is PDS's motion to dismiss the complaint. (Doc.
following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
deciding the pending motion, the Court accepts as true all
well-pleaded allegations of plaintiff's complaint and
draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor.
2000, when plaintiff was twenty-two years old, he was
convicted of a misdemeanor offense in state court. (Compl.
¶¶ 14, 20).
was hired by PDS in 2008, and by 2015 he held the position of
Senior Technical Advisor. (Compl. ¶ 13). Plaintiff
alleges PDS was aware of his misdemeanor conviction when he
was hired and throughout the term of his employment.
(Id. ¶ 15). Moreover, plaintiff alleges PDS
“regularly and routinely promoted” plaintiff and
provided him “pay raises and advancement” within
the company, despite his prior misdemeanor conviction.
(Id. ¶ 16).
2014, PDS underwent a “merger and/or acquisition
with” Stemp Systems Group, Inc. (Compl. ¶ 18).
During the negotiation of that merger/acquisition,
“multiple authorized members of PDS management”
told plaintiff that “representatives of Stemp Systems,
Inc., had taken the position that [p]laintiff's
employment must be terminated immediately upon completion of
said merger/acquisition” because of “the
existence of the misdemeanor conviction.” (Id.
¶¶ 19-20). Plaintiff was terminated in July 2015.
(Id. ¶ 16).
alleges he was terminated “solely on the basis
of” his misdemeanor conviction. (Compl. ¶ 21). He
alleges this constituted discrimination and caused him
humiliation, physical illness, and emotional distress.
(Id. ¶ 22).
September 28, 2015, plaintiff filed a charge with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
Plaintiff thereafter received a right to sue letter from the
EEOC, and he timely commenced this lawsuit on January 28,