Obabueki v. International Business Machines Corp.
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
145 F. Supp. 2d 371 (2001)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
In 1995, Abel Obabueki (plaintiff) was charged with welfare fraud under California law. Obabueki entered a no-contest plea and served jail time. In 1997, Obabueki’s conviction was vacated and dismissed. In 1999, International Business Machines Corp. (IBM) (defendant) gave Obabueki a job offer that was conditioned on passing a background check. Obabueki completed IBM’s security data sheet (SDS), which asked applicants whether they had pleaded guilty or no contest to a crime in the last seven years. It instructed applicants not to include any conviction that had been “expunged.” Obabueki indicated that he had no convictions. IBM retained Choicepoint, Inc. (defendant) to conduct background checks. Choicepoint had a minimal verification process when conviction records were uncovered. Choicepoint returned a background report for Obabueki that included his 1995 conviction. On October 13, 1999, Obabueki received a letter from IBM stating that it intended to withdraw his offer and attaching a copy of the report. Obabueki explained that the conviction had been dismissed and provided a copy of the dismissal order. IBM determined that Obabueki should have disclosed the conviction and rescinded his job offer by letter on October 18, 1999. Obabueki sued IBM for violation of the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and both IBM and Choicepoint for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schwartz, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.