Blog

 
     

California Restricts Employers from Using Juvenile Records for Employment Decisions

By Michael Klazema on 2/22/2017

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 lawnor 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 offensesunder 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

  • February 18

    Many hiring decisions are based mostly on candidates’ past work experiences. Here’s how a background check can verify employers to make sure those hiring decisions are grounded in fact.


  • February 14 As more states legalize various forms of marijuana, past marijuana convictions are still causing concern while uncertainty over substances such as CBD drives new arrests. 
  • February 12 A new bill in the New York State legislature could add new requirements for school employee background checks. Currently, private schools are not required to follow state mandates regarding background checks.
  • February 07 Some parents in El Paso, Texas have been left wondering about the strength of their city's youth sports procedures after a felon fraudulently took funds for a girls' soccer team.
  • February 06 If there is one way that volunteer organizations could serve their communities better, it’s implementing more thorough volunteer screening policies.
  • February 05 Madison County, Illinois has created a new initiative designed to help individuals overcome barriers to employment. Clients of the initiative will be able to explore criminal record expungement among other options.
  • February 01 An OfficeTeam survey found that the two most common forms of resume dishonesty had to do with past employers: job experience and job duties or responsibilities.
  • January 31 During the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, hundreds of thousands of federal employees have gone without work for more than a month. Some are finding temporary alternatives elsewhere.
  • January 29 A Florida nurse has been arrested for allegedly stealing two types of prescription pain medications from the county jail where she worked. The case highlights the importance of rigorous drug testing procedures for employment situations in which employees have access to prescription drugs.
  • January 24 After the airline failed to adequately disclose to applicants that they would undergo a background check, a court has ruled Delta did not meet its legislative obligations. The settlement highlights the importance of rigorous compliance.