California Decision on Adjudicating Employment Qualifications

By Michael Klazema on 8/12/2015

The Northern District of California recently decided another noteworthy case. The case is a reminder to employers that, when they consider the criminal history of employment applicants, they must consider how the nature of the offense and how long ago it was committed relate to the duties of the position.  


Plaintiff is a Latino born in Mexico who was brought to the United States by his parents when he was 11 years old. He began using a social security number that he “invented” to obtain employment at the age of 15.

In 1997, at the age of 17, Plaintiff applied to change his immigration status in part so he could obtain a valid social security number. While waiting for his application to be approved, he applied to the Internal Revenue Service to receive an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). The ITIN was issued that same year, although the plaintiff continued to use the invalid social security number that he had given his employer at an earlier date.

Ten years after making application, Plaintiff became a lawful permanent resident and received his own valid social security number in 2007. He became a United States citizen in 2011, at the approximate age of 34 years.

Plaintiff applied to be a corrections officer with California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the summer of 2011. The CDCR operates the state prison system.  Applicants are required to undergo a thorough background investigation to determine that candidates have good moral character, i.e., to evaluate applicants’ integrity, honesty, and good judgment. As part of this evaluation, applicants must answer many questions, including Question 75 which asks: “Have you ever had or used a social security number other than the one you used on this questionnaire?” Plaintiff answered “Yes” to this question and provided a supplemental answer explaining the circumstances surrounding his use of the invented social security number. Plaintiff’s record contained no blemishes other than the previous use of an invalid social security number.

In January 2012, the CDCR sent Plaintiff a rejection letter, stating:

“The fact that you committed identity theft for eight years but [sic] utilizing a social security number of a United States citizen causing unknown ramifications for that person by having income reported under their number that they were unaware of reflects that you are not suitable to assume the duties and responsibilities of a peace officer. The result of the background investigation revealed that you fail to possess these qualifications. You chose to use an unauthorized social security number even though had [sic] taxpayers [sic] ID number, shows a willful disregard for the law. This 8 year act of unlawfulness shows a lack of honesty, integrity, and good judgment.”

Plaintiff appealed the decision to the State Personnel Board (SPB) stating that he believed he was discriminated against because he was a naturalized US citizen and not a US-born citizen.  The SPB reaffirmed CDCR’s decision to reject Plaintiff based on the fact that he knowingly and willfully disregarded the law by his continued use of the invented social security number even after obtaining an ITIN in 1997, thereby demonstrating a lack of honesty, integrity, and good judgment. The SPB did not schedule an evidentiary hearing before an administrative law judge to determine the merits of Plaintiff’s discrimination claim. Nor did the CDCR take any action at all regarding Plaintiff’s claim that CDCR had discriminated against him.

Plaintiff applied again with CDCR to be a corrections officer in 2013, and was again rejected. His appeal of that rejection is still pending.

The court record shows there were 23,292 candidates for the position of corrections officer from 2009 to 2014. From that pool of candidates, 42 individuals answered “Yes” to Question 75; 33 were Latino and 9 were non-Latino. Of the 33 Latinos, CDCR cleared 14 and rejected 19.  Of the 19 rejected Latino candidates, CDCR rejected 9 in part because of their prior use of an invalid social security number; 2 of which the use of the invalid social security number was the only reason mentioned in the rejection letter. Of the non-Latino candidates, none were rejected because of prior use of an invalid social security number.


The court ruled CDCR’s use of Question 75 had a disparate impact on Latinos. Even though Question 75 was asked of all candidates and was a “facially neutral employment practice,” it had a significant disparate impact on a protected class, i.e. race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The fact that some Latinos who answered “Yes” to Question 75 were hired was not enough to sway the court. Showing that others within a protected class are not subject to adverse action is not a defense to a disparate-impact claim. The Supreme Court has held that focusing on the number of minorities that were hired or promoted would inappropriately ignore the disparate effect of a specific requirement or practice. So in this case, the fact that other Latinos who answered “Yes” to Question 75 were hired did not absolve CDCR from the practice that ultimately had a disparate impact on Latinos.

In defense of a disparate-impact claim, an employer must show a “business necessity” for its practice. To do this, an employer has to show that its employment practice is “significantly job-related” and serves a legitimate business interest. Although the Plaintiff was never arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any crime involving the use of an invented social security number, that use probably was a crime and the Plaintiff had admitted to the conduct, so the court analyzed the situation under precedent related to the use of conviction records in making employment decisions.  Case law establishes that even where criminal convictions are concerned, an employer cannot implement “a sweeping disqualification for employment resting solely on past behavior... where that employment practice has a disproportionate racial impact and rests upon a tenuous or insubstantial basis.” Green v. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., 523 F.2d 1290, 1296 (8th Cir. 1975). According to Green, employers cannot disqualify applicants based on a single criterion. Instead, employers must consider the following to prove business necessity: (1) the time elapsing since the conviction; (2) the degree of the criminal’s rehabilitation; and (3) the circumstances under which the crime was committed.

Although this case did not involve an arrest or criminal conviction, the court ruled CDCR failed to establish a business necessity by applying the Green factors because there was no evidence that it individually assessed Plaintiff’s application based on the Green factors. The court reviewed and explicitly approved of, and deferred to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) 2012 guidance on the use of criminal records in employment. Specifically, it adopted the EEOC’s approach of asking whether the employer individually assessed the three Green factors. In doing so, the court performed its own individual assessment and found that the Plaintiff’s prior use of an invalid social security number was not linked to the ability to maintain honesty, integrity, and good judgment as a corrections officer.

The court ruled that because Question 75 had a disparate impact on Latinos, CDCR can use it only if it also considers the Green factors under the EEOC guidelines. And, because it failed to consider the Green factors, CDCR made an adverse employment action based on a single-issue which amounted to an “arbitrary... barrier of employment.”


Plaintiff won his disparate-impact claim because CDCR failed to (1) prove a business necessity for its practice of considering information that, although facially neutral, had an adverse impact on a protected class; and (2) consider mitigating factors when applying qualification criteria. CDCR denied Plaintiff employment based on conduct he engaged in as long as 14 years prior to his application for a position with CDCR, starting when he was a teenager.

Effective employment policies and processes involving the use of criminal history are essential. Employers must ensure that their hiring policies measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract.

Some best practices based on this subject are:

  1. When adjudicating employment qualifications based on criminal history, employers must consider (1) the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct; (2) the time that has passed since the conduct; and (3) the nature of the job held or sought.
  2. If an employer asks questions in an application form that allows it a deeper look at the applicant than the criminal history does by itself, the employer must actually consider any response and would be well advised to document its decision-making process.

For these updates and much more on the FCRA, EEOC Guidance, various state laws and other compliance questions, please visit’s compliance resources hub and compliance updates archives.

Tag Cloud
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • July 17 — Hourly Employee Screening: What Makes It Unique and Important infographic?Modern employers conduct background checks on most of the people they hire. These checks are most often used to screen full-time salaried workers. Part-timers and hourly employees are typically less likely to face a thorough background check or even go through a background screening at all. According to a survey conducted by, 67 percent of employers screen all of their part-time employees, compared to 83 percent of their full-time employees.
  • July 17 A Kentucky school district recently decided to stop paying for volunteer background checks. Going forward, volunteers will be expected to cover the cost of their own checks, which is $10 per person.
  • July 12 Seeking fresh employees for businesses, some states seek to reduce the number of people denied employment based on old or nonviolent crimes.
  • July 11 Multinational aerospace company - Safran Group - trusts to screen new hires, The products they manufacture can have major implications for aircraft safety and worldwide security. As such, the company needs to be extremely careful and deliberate about who it trusts to join the organization.
  • July 11 Recently cited for driving too fast? Here’s what a speeding ticket will do to your background check report.
  • July 10

    Could your business be vulnerable to employee theft? Protect yourself with more thorough background checks.

  • July 09 While Social Security Numbers aren’t required for criminal history checks, they can be beneficial. Here’s why.
  • July 05

    In June, Chicago Public Schools came under fire after a Chicago Tribune piece accused the district of not protecting students from sexual abusers. The district has announced plans to run background checks on all employees.

  • July 04 — How important are volunteer background checks? Do they even matter?
    Organizations that rely in part on volunteer labor consistently find themselves asking these questions. The assumption is usually that volunteer background checks are less important than background checks for full-time or part-time employees. According to a CareerBuilder survey from 2016, 72 percent of employers conduct background checks on all employees. A parallel statistic isn’t even available for volunteer checks. They are less common – and less valued.
  • July 03 #MeToo harassment allegations continue to reshape workplaces in every industry. As a result, many companies are looking to safeguard themselves from liability.