WRONGFUL DISCHARGE – CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD INFORMATION ACT – CONTRACTS – EMPLOYMENT – SCOPE OF THE ACT

Phath v. Cent. Transp. LLC, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 2161 (January 28, 2026) Bibas, Circuit Judge.
Before: Bibas, Scirica, and Smith, Circuit Judges.
Job hunting is never easy; having a criminal conviction makes it much harder. So, Pennsylvania law limits when and how employers may use an applicant’s criminal history. When Rodney Phath interviewed for a trucking job, he revealed an old robbery conviction, so the trucking company rejected him out of hand. Even though the company learned of the conviction from him, not from a state agency’s files, the law still applies. We will thus REVERSE the District Court’s dismissal and let his case go forward.
Phath applied to drive for Central Transport, a trucking company. He looked like a good candidate: He had a commercial driver’s license, relevant experience, and federal clearance to access secure ports.
So, he got an interview. During the hiring process, Central Transport said it would check Phath’s criminal record. Before it did that, he told Central Transport what it would find: a fifteen-year-old armed robbery conviction, for which he had spent six years in prison. Central Transport immediately responded that it would not hire him because of that.
Phath sued Central Transport for violating a Pennsylvania state law that limits employers’ use of applicants’ criminal histories. The District Court dismissed, holding that the law did not apply because Central Transport had learned of his conviction from Phath, not from the state.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Phath and Central Transport are citizens of different states; we have jurisdiction under § 1291. We review de novo, taking the facts alleged as true. McCafferty v. Newsweek Media Grp., 955 F.3d 352, 356 (3d Cir. 2020).
Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act limits disclosure and use of “criminal history record information.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9101-9183. That is defined as “[i]nformation collected by criminal justice agencies” about a person’s description, arrests, indictments, convictions, and the like. § 9102. Prospective employers may ask state agencies for that information. See §§ 9113(e), 9121(b), 9125.
The question is whether the Act covers Phath’s own disclosure. When “an employer is in receipt of information which is part of an employment applicant’s criminal history record information file, the employer may use the applicant’s prior convictions for the purpose of deciding whether or not to hire the applicant …” § 9125(a) (emphasis added). But employers may use those convictions “only to the extent to which they relate to the applicant’s suitability” for the particular job. § 9125(b). And if an employer rejects an applicant because of his criminal history record information, it must give the applicant written notice of its decision. § 9125(c).
Phath alleged violations of subsections (b) and (c). But the dispute here is over subsection (a). Central Transport has not yet tried to show that Phath’s conviction makes him unsuitable to drive their trucks. Nor has it tried to show that it notified him of the rejection in writing. Rather, Central Transport argues that the Act does not apply at all because it got the information from Phath, not from a state agency’s files. That argument fails.
Nothing in the Act forbids asking applicants about their convictions; it just limits how employers may use that information. Cities may go further, passing ban-the-box laws to bar even asking about convictions.
Central Transport received information about Phath’s robbery conviction, and that information is part of his criminal history record information file. Nothing in the statute requires the information to come from the file. Because Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act forbade using that information to reject Phath without satisfying § 9125’s strictures, we will REVERSE and REMAND.
• When Rodney Phath interviewed for the trucking job, he revealed an old robbery conviction.
• The trucking company rejected him out of hand.
• Even though the company learned of the conviction from the prospective employee, not from the state agency’s files, the law still applies.
• Thus, the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and will let the case go forward.