Court: Employers not liable for hiring decisions after charges

Listen to this article

In Brief:

• Federal court dismissed claims against employers over hiring decisions tied to criminal charges.
• Plaintiff alleged acquitted charges harmed employment opportunities.
• Court found no duty of care owed by employers to prospective employees.
• At-will and conditional job offers defeated promissory estoppel claims.

A Minnesota man was charged with serious criminal offenses which, though discharged, affected his career prospects. The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota held that private employers could not be held liable for their unwillingness to hire or maintain his employment.

Carsten Quinlan alleged he had been wrongfully charged with fabricated allegations of domestic violence and child sexual abuse during his divorce. Quinlan was acquitted of these charges. However, Quinlan maintained that the criminal charges affected his employability.

Quinlan had a written offer of employment from FD Software to work as a software engineer, which he signed. However, the offer was conditioned on Quinlan passing a background check. After the background check, FD software found out about the pending criminal charges. Because of this, FD Software rescinded its offer of employment.

Subsequently, Quinlan was able to secure employment at SaVia Health. He asserted that SaVia Health became aware of the pending criminal charges against him. His employment was terminated, with SaVia Health citing performance-related issues.

After Quinlan was acquitted of the  criminal charges, he obtained a commercial driver’s license and applied for a job with Schneider National. He received a conditional offer of employment to be a truck driver. However, during an onboarding call, a recruiter asked Quinlan about the prior criminal case. Although Quinlan explained that he had been acquitted, the recruiter let Quinlan know that Schneider National would not move forward with employment.

Quinlan asserted that, because of these employment actions, he suffered significant financial harm. He filed suit against FD Software, SaVia Health and Schneider National, claiming negligent infliction of emotional distress and promissory estoppel, among others claims.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank first considered Quinlan’s claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. To state this claim, plaintiffs plead a duty of care and a breach of that duty, along with injury and causation. Additionally, the plaintiff must allege being within the zone of danger, reasonably fearing for their own safety, and suffering severe emotional distress with physical manifestations.

The court cited the Minnesota Supreme Court case, Williams v. Smith, in which the court held that employers do not owe a negligence-based duty of care to prospective employees. FD Software and Schneider National extended conditional offers contingent on a background check, and Quinlan’s employment with SaVia Health was at-will. Under Minnesota law, at-will employment may be terminated for any reason or no reason. Therefore, this court found that Quinlan did not establish that the employers had a duty to verify allegations or refrain from relying on background information when deciding whether to employ him. It also noted that his acquittal occurred months after FD Software rescinded its offer and SaVia Health terminated his employment, and so they could not have considered unavailable information or anticipated Quinlan’s acquittal.

Nor did the court agree with Quinlan on his promisorry estoppel claim. Under this claim, Quinlan had to show that there was a clear and definite promise made to induce reliance that actually occurred and must be enforced to prevent injustice. In the employment context it requires a definite promise of long-term employment terminable only for cause rather than at-will employment. The court reasoned that the offers from Schneider National or FD Software, or his employment with SaVia Health were not anything other than at-will positions. Schneider National made only a conditional offer, and FD Software expressly stated its offer was at-will and contingent on passing a background check. The court found that Quinlan’s reliance on continued stability at SaVia Health because he was employed for three months before being terminated does not plausibly suggest a promise of long-term employment terminable only for cause.

All of Quinlan’s claims were dismissed, and the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.