NEW YORK, NY – April 27, 2025 – Civil Rights Attorney Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§., announced today that former NYPD Police Officer Jermack Romero has filed a Verified Complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against the City of New York, former Police Commissioners Edward A. Caban and Keechant L. Sewell, and former Deputy Commissioner Amy J. Litwin. The lawsuit alleges pervasive gender-based discrimination, unlawful reliance on a sealed arrest record, retaliation for asserting protected rights, and systemic favoritism based on political affiliations within the New York City Police Department’s disciplinary process.

The case, Romero v. The City of New York, et al., centers on Romero’s termination from the NYPD after a seventeen-year career marked by exemplary service. The Verified Complaint outlines in exhaustive detail how Romero was subjected to harsher disciplinary actions than similarly situated officers, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

“This case highlights the NYPD’s persistent failure to uphold the principles of fairness and equal treatment in its disciplinary processes,â€� said Attorney Eric Sanders. “Instead of recognizing Mr. Romero’s rights, the Department reinforced gender stereotypes, disregarded legal protections afforded to individuals with sealed arrests, and weaponized internal discipline to favor politically connected individuals while punishing those without such affiliations.”

Allegations of Gender Discrimination and Gender Stereotyping

According to the Verified Complaint, Romero was accused in 2021 of domestic violence by a young female acquaintance with whom he had a close personal relationship. Despite the dismissal and sealing of the criminal charges in January 2022, the NYPD continued disciplinary action against Romero, culminating in his termination.

Romero alleges that NYPD officials presumed, based on gender stereotypes, that he was the primary aggressor in the domestic dispute. The disciplinary tribunal, led by Deputy Commissioner Trials Rosemarie Maldonado and Assistant Deputy Commissioner Vanessa Facio-Lince, systematically dismissed Romero’s claims of self-defense and disregarded credible exculpatory evidence.

Romero’s complaint further outlines how male officers like himself faced heightened scrutiny and harsher penalties in domestic incidents compared to similarly situated female officers, who often received lenient treatment or had charges dismissed outright.

“The NYPD’s disciplinary system operates on the harmful assumption that male officers are inherently guilty in domestic disputes,â€� Sanders said. “This presumption deprived Mr. Romero of a fair hearing and reflects a broader pattern of gender-based discrimination.â€�

Arrest Record Discrimination in Violation of State and City Law

The lawsuit further alleges that the NYPD unlawfully relied on Romero’s dismissed and sealed arrest record to initiate and sustain internal disciplinary charges, in direct violation of New York Criminal Procedure Law §§ 160.50 and 160.60, as well as protections afforded under the New York State Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 296(16)) and the New York City Human Rights Law (Administrative Code § 8-107(11)).

Under CPL §§ 160.50 and 160.60, once criminal charges are dismissed and sealed, the underlying arrest is deemed a nullity; the individual is to be treated as if the arrest and proceedings had never occurred. New York courts have consistently held that sealed arrests cannot serve as the basis for employment decisions, including disciplinary action, unless an employer can establish independent evidence of misconduct that bears a direct relationship to job performance or creates an unreasonable risk to public safety.

Romero contends that despite these clear legal mandates, the NYPD, through its Department Advocate’s Office, led at the time by Litwin, improperly prosecuted him by relying on the allegations associated with his dismissed and sealed arrest. The Verified Complaint asserts that the Department Advocate presented no new, independent evidence beyond the sealed incident and failed to demonstrate any direct relationship between the dismissed allegations and Romero’s fitness to serve as a police officer or any unreasonable risk to public safety.

Romero’s claims are consistent with recent judicial findings where courts have repeatedly criticized the NYPD for violating sealed records statutes in internal disciplinary proceedings. In decisions such as Matter of Anonymous v. New York City Police Department and Holloway v. City of New York, courts emphasized that NYPD disciplinary bodies must respect the legal finality and confidentiality protections associated with sealing statutes and cannot simply re-prosecute dismissed allegations under the guise of internal discipline.

“The NYPD’s use of Mr. Romero’s sealed arrest record was not merely a procedural irregularity — it was a fundamental violation of state law and well-established public policy protecting individuals from being stigmatized based on arrests that the criminal justice system has explicitly wiped away,” said Sanders. “The entire purpose of sealing is to ensure that people are not continually punished or discriminated against because of unfounded accusations. In Mr. Romero’s case, the NYPD showed blatant disregard for that protection.”

Sanders added, “By weaponizing a sealed arrest against Mr. Romero, the Department violated not only the letter of the law but also the spirit of fairness and rehabilitation that underpins New York’s sealing statutes. This misconduct further underscores the systemic flaws in the NYPD’s disciplinary system that this lawsuit seeks to expose and remedy.”

Arbitrary Discipline, Systemic Favoritism, and Senior Official Misconduct

Romero’s Verified Complaint meticulously documents a pattern of arbitrary, biased, and politically motivated disciplinary outcomes within the NYPD, exposing a deep culture of favoritism protected and perpetuated by the Department’s most senior officials.

Among the comparators cited:

• Police Officer Willie Thompson: Engaged in sexual relations with a female witness during an active carjacking investigation. Despite a tribunal recommendation of termination, Caban intervened, overturning the decision and imposing only a 30-day loss of vacation time and dismissal probation.

• Police Officer Kimberly Lucas: Pleaded guilty to falsifying COVID-19 vaccination documents — an act of fraud and misconduct undermining departmental integrity. Again, although termination was recommended, Caban reduced the penalty to a mere forfeiture of vacation days and probation.

• Sergeant Omar Salem: Committed domestic violence against his spouse but was never arrested or terminated, receiving only minor internal discipline despite credible allegations of physical abuse under former Commissioner Dermot F. Shea.

• Detective Marissa Sorocco: Found guilty of intentionally setting fire to marital property in an arson incident, yet allowed to retain her title and only suffered minimal penalties under former Commissioner James P. O’Neill.

• Police Officer Delare Rathour was found guilty of engaging in two separate incidents of domestic violence and reckless endangerment against his wife. In the first incident, Rathour shoved his wife into a closet, causing serious spinal injuries. In the second incident, despite an active order of protection, Rathour drove recklessly with his wife in the vehicle, running red lights and endangering her life, all of which was captured on video. Assistant Deputy Commissioner Jeff Adler strongly recommended Rathour’s termination after finding a blatant disregard for public and familial safety. Nevertheless, Caban deviated from this recommendation and imposed lesser penalties, allegedly due to Rathour’s political affiliation with influential individuals in the NYPD.

These officers, who engaged in serious and sometimes criminal conduct, were shielded from termination due to personal and political affiliations with NYPD leadership. In contrast, Romero, with no political ties and facing only a dismissed and sealed arrest, was subjected to disproportionately harsh treatment, culminating in termination.

More troubling, Romero’s Complaint alleges that favoritism was not limited to rank-and-file officers. Senior NYPD leadership, including multiple past Police Commissioners, routinely violated NYPD Patrol Guide regulations prohibiting association with individuals engaged in criminal conduct. Romero details how senior executives frequently socialized with the principal of a Bronx restaurant who publicly admitted to a criminal history involving narcotics trafficking, prostitution, and related activities.

Despite clear prohibitions against associating with persons reasonably believed to be engaging in criminal conduct, these relationships were tolerated and normalized within the NYPD’s upper ranks, without any disciplinary consequences.

“How can the NYPD claim to enforce standards of conduct among its officers when its leadership blatantly violates them?” asked Sanders. “The same officials who terminated Mr. Romero based on a dismissed and sealed arrest continued to maintain improper relationships with individuals tied to organized criminal activity — yet faced no investigation, no charges, and no accountability.”

Romero alleges that this deeply entrenched culture of favoritism corrupted the disciplinary system from the top down. The seriousness of the misconduct did not determine termination and discipline, but by the political connections of the accused — a system that punished the politically unprotected while shielding those with connections.

“The message was clear: loyalty and relationships mattered more than integrity and fairness,” Sanders said. “The NYPD’s leadership created and maintained a two-tiered system — rewarding insiders and sacrificing those who dared to assert their rights.”

The Verified Complaint asserts that this systemic favoritism, gender-based discrimination, unlawful reliance on sealed arrests, and retaliation for protected activities ultimately led to Romero’s wrongful termination, causing devastating economic, emotional, and reputational harm.

Retaliation for Asserting Protected Rights

In addition to discrimination, Romero claims he was retaliated against for asserting his rights under New York’s civil rights laws. After raising defenses based on self-defense, gender bias, and sealed arrest protections during the disciplinary process, Romero states that disciplinary charges were escalated, and threats of termination increased.

According to the Verified Complaint, Caban and Sewell permitted this retaliation to proceed unchecked, further evidencing a coordinated effort to punish Romero for exercising his protected rights.

“Instead of correcting the discriminatory process, senior leadership retaliated against Mr. Romero for standing up for himself,� Sanders said. “Retaliation for asserting legal rights is unlawful and morally reprehensible.�

Relief Sought

Romero’s Verified Complaint demands compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, front pay, lost pension rights, reinstatement or comparable equitable relief, and attorney’s fees and costs.

The action also seeks a declaratory judgment finding that the Defendants’ conduct violates the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law, including their amendments that require independent and liberal interpretation under the Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005.

“The culture of bias, favoritism, and retaliation within the NYPD cannot continue unchecked,� Sanders said. “Through this lawsuit, Mr. Romero seeks justice not just for himself, but to hold officials accountable and protect future officers from similar mistreatment.�

About ¸£Àû¼§.

Fighting for Justice and Reform to Promote Equal Opportunity

Led by Eric Sanders, Esq., ¸£Àû¼§. has a proven track record in civil rights litigation, representing clients in complex cases involving law enforcement misconduct and employment discrimination. Mr. Sanders, a former police officer himself, leverages deep insight into systemic issues facing law enforcement agencies. The firm has successfully recovered millions in damages and remains committed to promoting fairness, integrity, and meaningful reform within public institutions.

Contact: Eric Sanders, Esq.
President and Owner, ¸£Àû¼§.
30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 652-2782

###

Read the Verified Complaint

The post Ex-NYPD Officer Files Civil Rights Lawsuit Against City, Top NYPD Officials Alleging Gender Discrimination, Arrest Record Bias, and Political Favoritism first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§. discusses who is a ‘supervisor’ under Title VII?

The post Who is a ‘Supervisor’ Under Title VII? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Eric Sanders, Esq., of ¸£Àû¼§. discusses how to file an employment discrimination complaint

The post Filing An Employment Discrimination Complaint first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

The main purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to eliminate unlawful discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission () was given powers to enforce the laws that make it “illegal to fire, demote, harass, or otherwise “retaliate� against people (applicants or employees) because they filed a charge of discrimination.� It further states that is also illegal for an employer or covered entity to do the same because they complained about ‘discrimination on the job, or because they participated in an employment discrimination proceeding (such as an investigation or lawsuit).� A covered entity is an employer with 15 or more employees who are protected under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and American with Disabilities Act.

With respect to retaliation, if an employee files a complaint against an employer about workplace harassment or discrimination either to an internal body or an external body such as the EEOC, federal law “forbids retaliation when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, and any other term or condition of employment.� The law also protects individuals who cooperate in an EEOC investigation or serve as a witness to an EEOC investigation or litigation according to a Supreme Court decision.

However, The Supreme Court of the United States in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar recently revisited the issue of workplace retaliation and discrimination after a writ of certiorari (a document which a losing party files with the Supreme Court it to review the decision of a lower court) was presented before the Court. Specifically at issue, does Title VII require a plaintiff alleging retaliation to show that retaliation was the only reason for a negative employment action? In this case, the respondent, Dr. Naiel Nasser, man of Middle Eastern descent, was a faculty member of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW). The doctor in charge of the clinic, Nasser’s supervisor, Dr. Beth Levine began to question the respondent’s work practices and made offensive comments about Dr. Nasser’s ethnic background to another employee. Meanwhile, during this same he sought a promotion and obtained the promotion, however, he was still under Dr. Levine’s supervision and sought a position where he would not be.

He then sought employment at a clinic and was offered a position but would have to resign from UTSW. While waiting for the position start date he wrote his resignation letter to the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center citing the primary reason for leaving was “the continual harassment and discrimination� by Dr. Levine. He further stated that she threatened him with potential job and salary loss and her treatment of him stems from her “religious, racial and cultural bias against Arabs and Muslims that has resulted in a hostile work environment.�
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center through an agent of the employer, Dr. Gregory Fitz, took issue with the wording of Dr. Nasser’s resignation letter in regards to Dr. Levine and actively sought to block the respondent from obtaining employment at the clinic. After heavy opposition from UTSW faculty the clinic withdrew their offer. He filed a lawsuit submitting that UTSW constructively discharged and retaliated against him in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Simply put, the respondent argued that a workplace retaliation claim alone would trigger Title VII protection while UTSW held that retaliation would be in addition to a claim based upon discrimination with race, sex, and religion.

The Supreme Court of the United States decided there is separation between retaliation claims from class based discrimination claims and that retaliation claims are to be held to a stricter standard of proof which to the Court made sense given the “ever increasing frequency� retaliation claims are being filed. Thus based on the Supreme Court decision, an employee who believes that an employer has retaliated them against must show that retaliation was not the only factor in any adverse action taken by the employer.

It is a big victory for employers, which hopefully doesn’t discourage those individuals who believe that their rights have been violated or retaliated against in the workplace; this decision just made it more challenging to prove.

If you believe that, you are the victim of retaliation contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Workplace Retaliation first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

EEOC Answer: Depends

The New York State Human Rights Law states that an applicant may not be denied employment or licensure because of his or her conviction record unless there is a direct relationship between the job sought or unless hiring or licensure would create an unreasonable risk to property or to public safety and that individual is entitled to a statement of the reasons for such denial.

The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission () has offered policy guidance with respect to determining whether arrest records may be considered in employment decisions. The Commission concluded, “since the use of arrest records as an absolute bar to employment has a disparate impact on some protected groups, such records alone cannot be used routinely exclude persons from employment. However, conduct which indicates unsuitability for a particular position is a basis for exclusion. Where it appears that the applicant or employee engaged in the conduct for which he was arrested and that the conduct is job-related and relatively recent, exclusion is justified.�

The EEOC cites Gregory v. Litton Systems Inc., which involved an employer use of an applicant’s arrest record, as the lead case that indicates using them would have a disparate impact on a protected class. In this suit, the district court found that Litton showed no reasonable business purpose for continuing to ask prospective employees about their arrest records and that the apparently race-neutral employment questionnaire actually operated to bar employment to black applicants in far greater proportion than to white applicants. The Litton case is used to by the EEOC and courts to establish a prima facie case of discrimination against blacks where arrests records are used in employment decisions because the case relied upon extensive statistics that showed blacks are arrested more frequently than whites in proportion to their numbers.

In 2012, the EEOC released “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964� wherein it states that “an employer’s use of an individuals criminal history in making employment decisions may, in some instances, violate the prohibition against employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.�
Although the Commission’s policy of discouraging employers use of arrest records is not entirely new, this recent policy guidance has been sharply criticized and courts generally reject the notion that basing hiring decisions on criminal conviction is discriminatory. This occurred when the EEOC filed a suit against Carolina Freight Carrier Corp., in 1989 on behalf of a Hispanic man who had been refused employment because of multiple arrests and had served prison time for larceny. The EEOC argued that despite his record he was qualified to operate a tractor-trailer. The district judge ruled in favor of the Carolina Freight Carrier Corporation.

Overall, employers in New York State and the City of New York cannot refuse to hire an individual based upon an arrest, regardless of the number of times, which did not result in a conviction for a crime with the exception being if the employer is a law enforcement agency. Employers can ask about open arrests, one that has not resulted in a disposition.

Employers may also ask about prior convictions but New York State and New York City law makes it illegal for an employer to make hiring decisions or terminate an employee based upon past criminal convictions. However, this law does not apply to private employers with less than four employees or law enforcement agencies.

If an individual is denied employment because of a criminal conviction they may request from the employer, in writing, the reason why the employer denied the individual the job and the employer has thirty days to respond to the request.

You may consider also filing claims of race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (Government employees as well as private employees hired by employers working under a Memorandum of Understanding with a government agency or contractor), and the New York State Human Rights Law because there is substantial data to support that race is a significant factor impacting arrest and conviction rates.

If you believe that, you have suffered from arrest or conviction discrimination or race discrimination contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Can An Employer Refuse to Hire an Applicant Based Upon An Arrest? first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

In addition to the laws that are enacted and are applicable throughout the State of New York, the City of New York has been very progressive enacting several expansive anti-discrimination laws.  In many respects, the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) are very similar in structure, legislative intent and application.  Laws enforced under the NYSHRL may be adjudicated administratively at the New York State Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR).  The NYSHRL may also be enforced by filing a lawsuit in federal or state court.  Laws enforced under the NYCHRL may be adjudicated administratively at the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR).  The NYCHRL may also be enforced by filing a lawsuit in federal or state court.

The NYCHRL prohibits discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodation on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, marital status, citizenship status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc.  The NYCHRL also prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of arrest or conviction record.  The NYCHRL prohibits retaliation.  Recently, through the New York City Local Civil Rights Restoration Act of 2005, the NYCHRL was enacted to further enhanced and broadened  protections relative to both the federal laws and the NYSHRL counterparts.

In Gina Williams v. New York City Housing Authority, et al., 61 AD3d 62 January 27, 2009.  The Court held that, the Restoration Act notified courts that (a) they had to be aware that some provisions of the NYCHRL were textually distinct from its state and federal counterparts, (b) all provisions of the NYCHRL required independent construction to accomplish the law’s uniquely broad purposes, ^[and (c) cases that had failed to respect these differences were being legislatively overruled. In short, the text and legislative history represent a desire that the NYCHRL “meld the broadest vision of social justice with the strongest law enforcement deterrent.â€�  The Court then affirmed the lower Court’s dismissal because the Pro See plaintiff did not raise the misapplication of the law during her appeal.

In Howard Hoffman v. Parade Publishing, et al., 2010 NY Slip Op 05706 decided July 1, 2010, the court held that the protections of the NYCHRL would be available to an employee that resides in the City of New York, even if the employer is located outside of the City of New York if, its’ decision had an “impact� within the City of New York.

In Daniel M. Maffei v. Kolaeton Industry, Inc. et al., the court held that the NYCHRL applied to prohibited discrimination against transgendered individuals.
To file a discrimination complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights, please call 311 if you are located within the City of New York or 212-306-7450

CCHR Community Service Centers

Manhattan
40 Rector Street, 10^th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10006
212-306-5070
Brooklyn
275 Livingston Street, 2^nd Floor
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11217
718-722-3130
Bronx
1932 Arthur Avenue, Room 203A
Bronx, N.Y. 10457
718-579-6900
Queens
153-01 Jamaica Avenue, Room 203
Jamaica, N.Y. 11432
718-657-2465
Staten Island
60 Bay Street, 7^th Floor
Staten Island, N.Y. 10301
718-390-8506

The post City of New York Anti-Discrimination Legislative Initiatives first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

Under Federal, State and some local laws, it is illegal to discriminate against an individual for their:
• Ethnicity
• Skin color, or related facial features
• Country of origin
• Age
• Sex
• Religious beliefs
• Political alignment
• Arrest and conviction record

What constitutes discrimination?

An act constitutes discrimination if you are subjected to treatment that is different from that way others are treated. The differentiation must be in a negative or adverse manner to be considered discrimination; if, due to your race, religion, or status, you are subjected to extra special service, or some other positive act, although you may have been treated differently, the act does not constitute discrimination. Examples of discrimination include:
• Being refused service at a restaurant due to your skin color
• Not being hired for a job due because of your religious beliefs
• Other employees are promoted over you, despite your being more qualified due to your race
• Being refused entrance into an establishment due to your country of origin
• Having to resign from your employment, due to unwarranted sexual gestures and advances towards you
• Being fired from your job after your employer learns that you have different political views
• Being fired from your job due to your sexual orientation
• Not receiving service from an employee or business with anti-war views, upon their learning of your status as a veteran
• Being turned down for a job, despite being qualified, due to your marital status
• Not being allowed to enter a church after being charged with a crime

What do I need to file a discrimination complaint?

If you plan on filing a discrimination complaint, it is imperative that you document as much as possible. For example, if you have been discriminated against while applying for a job, prepare all the documents relevant to your job application process. If you were treated unfairly at a business establishment, keep receipts or other relevant material. If you are able to take photographs or video, related to the act of discrimination against you, due so. Write down the names of the offender as well as witnesses including the surrounding circumstances.

How do I file a discrimination complaint?

Before filing your complaint, you may want to consult with an attorney. When considering legal advice, it would serve you well to consult with an attorney that handles discrimination cases. The attorney will consider your claims then suggest ways to meet your legal needs.
Complaints about discrimination covered under may be filed with the federal government. To file a complaint with the , please contact the online. In New York, you may file in person at 33 Whitehall Street, 5th Floor New York, N.Y. 10004.

Complaints about discrimination covered under New York State Executive Law 296, may be filed with the state government. To file a complaint with the , please contact the online. You may file in person but, see the website for further information as the filing locations vary depending on the type of discrimination and the location.

Complaints about discrimination covered under New York City Administrative Code 8-107, may be filed with the City of New York. To file a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights, please contact the online. You may file in person but, see the website for further information.

The post Filing a Discrimination Complaint first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

In certain instances, the law prohibits an employer from making hiring decisions based on a job applicant’s criminal history (or the lack thereof)

There is no federal law that clearly prohibits an employer from asking about arrest and conviction records. However, if employers use such records as a factor in their employment decisions and those decisions have a disparate adverse impact on the protected groups, the employer could be liable under of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or even the , just to name a few.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has published revised to address this issue given the significant percentage of the U.S. population that has had contact with the criminal justice system.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, nationwide, on December 31, 2010, there were 1,612,395, prisoners housed in the state and federal prisons; June 2011, 748,728 prisoners housed in local jails; in 2010, 4,055,500, adults on probation with another 4.4 million either moving onto off probation status or actually off probation; in 2010, 840,676, adults on parole with another 1.1 million either moving onto off parole status or actually off parole and in 2010, 4,887,900, adults under community supervision. The numbers are quite staggering. This brief summary of the statistical data does not include past years or the special populations such as Indians and juveniles.

Although there is no federal law that clearly prohibits and employer from asking about arrest and conviction records, New York is quite progressive in its attempt to address arrest discrimination. The New York State Human Rights Law () and New York City Human Rights Law () applies to employers with 4 or more employees and offers broader protections. Under the , arrest or criminal accusation would be the appropriate forms of discrimination. Under the , criminal conviction or arrest record would be the appropriate forms of discrimination.

Recently, the New York Senate began considering , which if ratified and enacted would amend the correction law, in relation to the manner through which enforcement proceedings are brought. The purpose of this bill is to ensure that persons illegally discriminated against by a public employer due to a prior criminal conviction unrelated to the employment sought is able to seek redress with the New York State Division of Human Rights.

If you feel that you’ve been the victim of arrest discrimination, or would like to have an attorney review your documents to ensure that your rights are protected, contact the New York Arrest Discrimination Lawyer at ¸£Àû¼§., today. We are your voice for justice.

The post Criminal Records and Arrest Discrimination first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..