Rodney Phath v. CENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC Appeal from the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa. Judge John R.…

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE T HIRD CIRCUIT
No. 25-1028
R ODNEY P HATH,
Appellant
v.
C ENTRAL TRANSPORT LLC
_____________________________
Appeal from the U.S. District Court, E.D. Pa.
Judge John R. Padova, No. 2:24-cv-00681
Before: BIBAS, S CIRICA, and S MITH, Circuit Judges
Argued Oct. 29, 2025; Decided Jan. 28, 2026
_____________________________
O PINION OF THE C OURT
B IBAS, Circuit Judge. 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 truck-
ing 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.

-- 1 of 7 --

2
I. PHATH REVEALS HIS ROBBERY CONVICTION
AND I S T URNED DOWN FOR A J OB
Phath applied to drive for Central Transport, a trucking
company. He looked like a good candidate: He had a commer-
cial 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 Cen-
tral 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 his-
tories. The District Court dismissed, holding that the law did
not apply because Central Transport had learned of his convic-
tion 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).
II. PENNSYLVANIA ’ S ACT COVERS
J OB APPLICANTS ’ O WN DISCLOSURES
Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act
limits disclosure and use of “criminal history record infor-
mation.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 9101–9183. That is defined as
“[i]nformation collected by criminal justice agencies” about a

-- 2 of 7 --

3
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 disclo-
sure. 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 appli-
cant 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.
A. Section 9125 applies to Phath’s disclosure of his own
conviction
This case is about whether the italicized phrase above covers
Phath’s self-disclosure. It does. Start with “in receipt of.” By
itself, those words are broad: The employer just has to receive
the information. “In receipt of” does not limit how or from
whom the employer must receive it.

-- 3 of 7 --

4
So what information must the employer be “in receipt of”?
“[I]nformation which is part of an employment applicant’s
criminal history record information file ….” § 9125(a). On its
own, “information” is broad too. Next, the word “which” could
in theory suggest that the phrase that follows does not define
or restrict the type of “information” covered. See Chicago
Manual of Style ¶ 5.254, at 367 (18th ed. 2024). But that would
make the rest of the phrase surplusage, letting the subsection
apply to all information of any sort, which makes no sense.
And drafters often use “which” loosely to mean “that,” intro-
ducing a definition or restriction. Antonin Scalia & Bryan A.
Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 142–
43 (2012). Plus, there is no comma before “which,” suggesting
that the rest of the phrase restricts the kind of information cov-
ered. Chicago Manual of Style ¶ 5.254, at 367. The better read-
ing is that § 9125(a) applies when and only when “information
… is part of an employment applicant’s criminal history record
information file.”
But what is that file, and what is part of it? The statute does
not define “file” or “criminal history record information file.”
That phrase appears only one other time in the Act, instructing
repositories to “enter as a permanent part of an individual’s
criminal history record information file, a listing of all persons
and agencies to whom they have disseminated that particular
criminal history record information.” § 9121(f). That context
implies that a “criminal history record information file” is a
compilation of criminal history facts collected and maintained
by state agencies. See also §§ 9102 (defining “repository” in
terms of a “criminal justice agency”), 9111 (directing such
agencies to maintain such information).

-- 4 of 7 --

5
Felony convictions like Phath’s are included in that file.
§§ 9102, 9111, 9113. So they are “part of” the file. And Central
Transport was “in receipt of” that information when Phath dis-
closed it. Nothing in either phrase requires the information to
come from a state agency’s file, as opposed to from Phath.
Central Transport (like the precedents it cites) reads the statute
as if it applies only when an employer is “in receipt of infor
mation which is a part of an employment applicant’s criminal
history record information file.” At oral argument, it admitted
as much. But we cannot read the struck-through words out of
the statute. What matters in § 9125(a) is the type of information
that the employer received, not its source. Thus, when Phath
disclosed his conviction, Central Transport was “in receipt of
information” that is “part of” his “criminal history record infor-
mation file.”
Resisting this conclusion, at argument Central Transport
claimed that our reading would make ban-the-box laws point-
less. Not so. 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.
B. Section 9104 does not save Central Transport
Despite all this, Central Transport contends that § 9104 re-
quires inquiry into the information’s source. Section 9104(a)
creates exceptions for certain sources of information, like court
documents, wanted posters, and “police blotters and press
releases that contain criminal history record information.” But
we do not reach how, if at all, § 9104(a) applies to hiring-
discrimination claims because Central Transport learned of

-- 5 of 7 --

6
Phath’s conviction from Phath. And Phath learned of it by liv-
ing through it, not from any of the excluded sources. Even if
§ 9104(a) applies to § 9125(a), an applicant’s own disclosure is
not listed as one of the exempted sources. So the expressio
unius canon applies: By listing only these specific exemptions,
the “statute implies the exclusion of” any other exemptions.
Thompson v. Thompson, 223 A.3d 1272, 1277 (Pa. 2020). Even
if § 9104 could shield an employer whose information traced
back to one of these sources, it would not shield Central
Transport. We cannot create an exemption from § 9125(a)
when the legislature failed to do so.
* * * * *
Central Transport received information about Phath’s rob-
bery conviction, and that information is part of his criminal his-
tory 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 stric-
tures, we will REVERSE and REMAND.
Counsel for Appellant
Yasmeen Rose
Grace Seifert
Brian S. Wolfman [Argued]
G EORGETOWN U NIVERSITY L AW C ENTER
A PPELLATE C OURTS IMMERSION C LINIC
Larry A. Weisberg
W EISBERG C UMMINGS

-- 6 of 7 --

7
Counsel for Appellee
Jonathan R. Cavalier [Argued]
Morgan Hollander [Argued]
JACKSON L EWIS
Counsel for Amicus
Christopher M. McNerney
Outten & Golden

-- 7 of 7 --