Blog

 
     

California Restricts Employers from Using Juvenile Records for Employment Decisions

By Michael Klazema on 3/8/2017

On September 26, 2016, the state of California passed Assembly Bill 1843 that amended the Labor Code by prohibiting employers from asking an applicant for employment to disclose certain juvenile records. The amended Labor Code has been effective since January 1, 2017.

The amended Section 432.7 (2) of the Labor Code states:

  • No employer, whether a public agency or private individual or corporation, shall ask an applicant for employment to disclose, through any written form or verbally, information concerning or related to an arrest, detention, processing, diversion, supervision, adjudication, or court disposition that occurred while the person was subject to the process and jurisdiction of juvenile court law, nor shall any employer seek from any source whatsoever, or utilize, as a factor in determining any condition of employment including hiring, promotion, termination, or any apprenticeship training program or any other training program leading to employment, any record concerning or related to an arrest, detention, processing, diversion, supervision, adjudication, or court disposition that occurred while a person was subject to the process and jurisdiction of juvenile court law.

The bill’s definition of “conviction” excludes “any adjudication by a juvenile court or any other court order or action taken with respect to a person who is under the process of the juvenile court law.”

Employers from a “Health facility” as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code  are precluded from inquiring into an applicant’s juvenile offense history unless the information concerns an adjudication by a juvenile court in which the applicant was found to have committed a felony or a misdemeanor offense  under Section 290 of the Penal Code (sexual assault offenses) or Section 11590 of the Health and Safety Code (controlled substance offenses) in the five years before the application for employment. In addition, health facility employers must not inquire from the applicant information concerning or related to their juvenile offense history that was sealed by the juvenile court. 

A health facility employer who seeks disclosure of acceptable offense history must provide the applicant with a list describing the specific offenses under Section 11590 of the Health and Safety Code or Section 290 of the Penal Code for which disclosure is sought.

The amended Labor Code is accessible here for review:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1843

What This Means to You:

  • The amended Labor Code prohibits an employer from inquiring or considering information concerning the applicant’s arrest, detention, processing, diversion, supervision, adjudication, or court disposition that occurred while the applicant was subject to the process and jurisdiction of a juvenile court. Typical background screening reports do not include juvenile proceedings because those proceedings are not typically available publicly and may not use sufficient levels of process and evidence for an employer to conclude that a juvenile committed a crime.
  • Health care facilities cannot inquire the applicant to disclose their juvenile offense history unless the information concerns an adjudication by a juvenile court in which the applicant was found to have committed a felony or a misdemeanor offense under Section 290 of the Penal Code or Section 11590 of the Health and Safety Code in the five years before the application for employment.
  • Health care facilities cannot inquire about an applicant’s juvenile offense history that was sealed by juvenile court.

Health care facilities who seek disclosure of permissible offense history from the applicant must provide the individual with a list describing the specific offenses under Section 11590 of the Health and Safety Code or Section 290 of the Penal Code for which disclosure is sought.


Tag Cloud
Categories
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • March 13 — A Denver hospital was in the headlines last year for hiring a surgery technician who stole syringes of the painkiller fentanyl. New information suggests that a more thorough background check could have flagged the man’s addiction issues.
  • March 08 — On September 26, 2016, the state of California passed Assembly Bill 1843 that amended the Labor Code by prohibiting employers from asking an applicant for employment to disclose certain juvenile records. The amended Labor Code has been effective since January 1, 2017.
  • March 08 — For the past 5 years, backgroundchecks.com has reported rulings of district courts around the country that have ruled that an employer’s inclusion of a liability waiver or other extraneous information in a disclosure violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s (“FCRA”) disclosure requirements found in §604(b)(2)(a). Now, for the first time, a federal court of appeals has weighed in on the disclosure requirement.
  • March 07 — The Kentucky State Senate has approved a piece of legislation that would open the state’s child abuse and neglect registry to schools, camps, and parents. If passed, the law would allow anyone to request a search of the database.
  • March 06 — A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a plaintiff with a case against Amazon.com has the right to sue the company for an alleged violation of the FCRA. The suit accuses Amazon of failing to provide a standalone background check disclosure form free of extraneous information.
  • March 05 — A federal judge in Florida has ruled that a plaintiff with a case against Amazon.com has the right to sue the company for an alleged violation of the FCRA. The suit accuses Amazon of failing to provide a standalone background check disclosure form free of extraneous information.
  • February 21 — In January, a Washington, D.C. contractor was fired for being reckless with confidential patient files. The woman had a criminal record with two felony convictions, but a local background check did not list the offenses.
  • February 16 — A state representative in Wisconsin aims to make it a Class A misdemeanor to lie on a state application for professional licensing. It is illegal to lie on licensing applications but there is no protocol for prosecuting offenders.
  • February 14 — The schools in the University of Wisconsin System are considering criminal background checks for all student applicants. The deliberation was sparked by protests responding to a student on the UW-Madison campus who tried to start a white nationalist group.
  • February 09 — Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin signed an executive order banning the box in the state government’s executive branch.