The lawsuit centers on NTT Data’s policy of denying employment to individuals with criminal histories, specifically felony convictions. Plaintiff George Mandala, an African-American, alleges the company rescinded a job offer for a Salesforce Developer position after discovering his 2014 driving while intoxicated conviction, citing a blanket policy against hiring persons with felonies.
Mandala’s First Amended Complaint argues this practice disproportionately harms African-American applicants, citing statistics that Black men with some college education face imprisonment risks seven times greater than white men with similar educational attainment. The complaint asserts that despite these disparities, NTT Data maintains a policy of denying employment without assessing whether applicants have made positive changes post-conviction.
In its motion to reconsider, NTT Data argued the district court committed clear error by allowing the disparate impact claims to proceed and by declining to dismiss the parallel New York State Human Rights Law claim as barred by the statute of limitations. The employer contended the plaintiff lacked standing because he did not apply for a specific job posting cited in the complaint and that the statistics relied upon were irrelevant to the qualified labor pool.
Judge Meredith A. Vacca denied the motion, holding that Mandala plausibly alleged Article III standing based on the rescinded job offer and class standing by linking his injury to the same discriminatory conduct affecting other applicants. The court found the complaint sufficiently connected national statistics to the qualified candidate pool by alleging that racial disparities in conviction rates persist even when controlling for educational attainment.
The court also rejected NTT Data’s statute of limitations argument, noting that the face of the complaint did not clearly show the New York claim was untimely and that tolling under American Pipe required fact-specific evaluation. The court declined to find clear error in its prior decision to defer the statute of limitations determination until later in the litigation.
In an alternative request, NTT Data asked the court to certify the legal sufficiency of the disparate impact claims for interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court denied this request, finding no conflicting authority or substantial ground for difference of opinion regarding the application of Second Circuit precedent to the amended complaint.
The court’s order denies all of NTT Data’s motions and requires the company to file an answer on the remaining claims within thirty days. The decision allows Mandala’s disparate impact claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law to move forward in the putative class action.