California Archives

New California Law Prohibits Employers from Telling Applicants That a Driver’s License Is Required for a Job Unless the Position Meets a Two-Part Test

What is this about?
On September 28, 2024, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill (SB) 1100 to amend California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act (FEHA), making it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material that an applicant “must have” a driver’s license unless the employer “reasonably” anticipates driving as an essential job function that cannot be comparably performed by alternative means.

Effective Date:
The law becomes effective on January 1, 2025, as an amendment to Section 12940 of the Government Code.

Who must comply:
The new law applies to employers who regularly employ one or more persons or regularly receive the services of one or more persons providing services under a contract or any person acting as an agent of an employer, directly or indirectly, the state or any political or civil subdivision of the state, and cities.

Employer Obligations:

Starting January 1, 2025, employers must meet a two-part test before including a statement in a job advertisement, posting, application, or other material stating that an applicant must have a driver’s license:

The employer must reasonably expect driving to be one of the job functions for the position, and
The employer must reasonably believe that satisfying the job function using an alternative form of transportation (such as ride-hailing, taxi, carpooling, bicycling, or walking) would not be comparable in travel time or cost to the business

Why compliance matters:
Like other unlawful employment practices prohibited under the FEHA, employers who violate the new law could face an injunction or declaratory relief (such as being required to hire the applicant) or be held liable for compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

What SI is doing:
To help ensure compliance with the new California license law, SI will modify its materials for California employers and applicants to indicate that providing driver’s license information is voluntary, not mandatory—unless the employer informs SI that the job position meets the new law’s two-part test

Employer Considerations:
If a job position does not require a driver’s license, employers may want to consider excluding a motor vehicle record from the background check.

|Compliance Corner, Employment Decisions|

LA County Fair Chance Ordinance becomes operational September 3, 2024

What is this about?
On February 27, 2024, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors voted to adopt the County’s Fair Chance Ordinance for Employers (FCO). The FCO aligns with the California Fair Chance Act (FCA), also known as “Ban the Box.” However, it adds several compliance requirements when considering the applicant’s criminal record history to make an employment decision.

Effective Date:The FCO is operative on September 3, 2024.

Who must comply:
The FCO applies to any “employer” located or doing business in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County who employs five or more employees regardless of location. The FCO protects both applicants seeking employment and employees seeking promotions, as well as others seeking non-traditional employment, such as contract or freelance work.

New requirements:
Notice of Intent to Conduct Background Check.
This notice must be given along with any conditional offer of employment to the applicant or employee that states (1) the conditional offer is contingent upon a review of a criminal record history and (2) the employer has good cause to conduct the criminal history review “for the specific job position with supporting justification in writing.” It is not enough for the employer to merely state it reviews such information because of a generalized “safety concern.” Specific information is required.

Before employers can take any adverse action against an individual, such as rescinding a conditional job offer, the FCO requires the employer to (1) prepare a written individualized assessment of an applicant’s criminal history in the manner required by the FCO; (2) provide a form of preliminary notice of adverse action with mandatory content; (3) provide a second written individualized assessment if the individual provides information in response to the preliminary notice of adverse action; and (4) provide a final notice of adverse action if the employer makes a final decision to withdraw the conditional offer of employment or take any other adverse action (the final notice must also include mandatory content).

Why compliance matters:
The FCO authorizes public and private remedies, including civil claims. The County of Los Angeles Department of Consumer and Business Affairs (DCBA) is authorized to take appropriate steps to enforce the FCO and conduct investigations of possible violations by an employer. The DCBA may issue monetary penalties of up to $5,000 for the first violation, up to $10,000 for the second violation, and up to $20,000 for the third and subsequent violations.

How SI can help:
SI can help ensure compliance in several ways, including the timing of background checks, the distribution of mandatory and sample notices, and the monitoring of the required time periods for taking adverse action.

|Compliance Corner, Employment Decisions|

Reminder about New Requirements for California Employers When Considering Criminal History in Employment Decisions

What is this about?
On February 27, 2024, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors voted to adopt the County’s Fair Chance Ordinance for Employers (FCO). The FCO aligns with the California Fair Chance Act (FCA), also known as “Ban the Box.” However, it adds several compliance requirements when considering the applicant’s criminal record history to make an employment decision.

Effective Date:
The FCO is operative on September 3, 2024.

Who must comply:
The FCO applies to any “employer” located or doing business in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County who employs five or more employees regardless of location. The FCO protects both applicants seeking employment and employees seeking promotions, as well as others seeking non-traditional employment, such as contract or freelance work.

New requirements:
Notice of Intent to Conduct Background Check. This notice must be given along with any conditional offer of employment to the applicant or employee that states (1) the conditional offer is contingent upon a review of a criminal record history and (2) the employer has good cause to conduct the criminal history review “for the specific job position with supporting justification in writing.” It is not enough for the employer to merely state it reviews such information because of a generalized “safety concern.” Specific information is required.

Before employers can take any adverse action against an individual, such as rescinding a conditional job offer, the FCO requires the employer to (1) prepare a written individualized assessment of an applicant’s criminal history in the manner required by the FCO, (2) provide a form of preliminary notice of adverse action with mandatory content, (3) provide a second written individualized assessment if the individual provides information in response to the preliminary notice of adverse action, and (4) provide a final notice of adverse action if the employer makes a final decision to withdraw the conditional offer of employment or take any other adverse action (the final notice must also include mandatory content).

Why compliance matters:
The FCO authorizes public and private remedies, including civil claims. The County of Los Angeles Department of Consumer and Business Affairs (DCBA) is authorized to take appropriate steps to enforce the FCO and conduct investigations of possible violations by an employer. The DCBA may issue monetary penalties of up to $5,000 for the first violation, up to $10,000 for the second violation, and up to $20,000 for the third and subsequent violations.

How SI can help:
SI can help ensure compliance in several ways, including the timing of background checks, the distribution of mandatory and sample notices, and the monitoring of the required time periods for taking adverse action.

|Compliance Corner, Employment Decisions|

County of Los Angeles Enacts Fair Chance Ordinance New Hiring Requirements for Employers

What is this about?
On February 27, 2024, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors voted to adopt the County’s Fair Chance Ordinance for Employers (FCO). The FCO aligns with the California Fair Chance Act (FCA), also known as “Ban the Box.” However, it adds several compliance requirements when considering the applicant’s criminal record history to make an employment decision.

Effective Date:
The FCO is operative on September 3, 2024.

Who must comply:
The FCO applies to any “employer” located or doing business in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County who employs five or more employees regardless of location. The FCO protects both applicants seeking employment and employees seeking promotions, as well as others seeking non-traditional employment, such as contract or freelance work.

New requirements:
Notice of Intent to Conduct Background Check. This notice must be given along with any conditional offer of employment to the applicant or employee that states (1) the conditional offer is contingent upon a review of a criminal record history and (2) the employer has good cause to conduct the criminal history review “for the specific job position with supporting justification in writing.” It is not enough for the employer to merely state it reviews such information because of a generalized “safety concern.” Specific information is required.

Before employers can take any adverse action against an individual, such as rescinding a conditional job offer, the FCO requires the employer to (1) prepare a written individualized assessment of an applicant’s criminal history in the manner required by the FCO; (2) provide a form of preliminary notice of adverse action with mandatory content; (3) provide a second written individualized assessment if the individual provides information in response to the preliminary notice of adverse action; and (4) provide a final notice of adverse action if the employer makes a final decision to withdraw the conditional offer of employment or take any other adverse action (the final notice must also include mandatory content).

Why compliance matters:
The FCO authorizes public and private remedies, including civil claims. The County of Los Angeles Department of Consumer and Business Affairs (DCBA) is authorized to take appropriate steps to enforce the FCO and conduct investigations of possible violations by an employer. The DCBA may issue monetary penalties of up to $5,000 for the first violation, up to $10,000 for the second violation, and up to $20,000 for the third and subsequent violations.

How SI can help:
SI can help ensure compliance in several ways, including the timing of background checks, the distribution of mandatory and sample notices, and the monitoring of the required time periods for taking adverse action.

|Compliance Corner, Employment Decisions|

Reminder about New Requirements for California Employers When Considering Criminal History in Employment Decisions

What is this about:

The California Fair Chance Act requires employers to make a conditional offer of employment before considering an applicant’s criminal history. On October 1, 2023, new regulations by the California Civil Rights Department went into effect regarding how employers can use information about an applicant’s criminal history to rescind a conditional offer.

Effective date:

October 1, 2023

What this means:

Before a conditional offer can be rescinded, a California employer must perform an individualized assessment as to whether the applicant’s criminal history “has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position.” (California Code of Regulations Section 11017.1(c)(1)).

The specific requirements for the individualized assessment must include, at a minimum, consideration of the following factors: •     the nature and gravity of the offense or conduct;
•     the time that has passed since the offense or conduct occurred or the completion of the sentence;
•     the nature of the job held or sought.

If, after the individualized assessment, the employer makes a preliminary decision to revoke the conditional offer, the employer must notify the applicant in writing of the preliminary decision. The notice (which can be part of the pre-adverse action notice) must include all the following information:

•     the conviction(s) that were the basis for the preliminary decision;
•     a copy of the information relied on for the decision;
•     statement that the applicant or their representative has the right (but is not required) to respond before the decision becomes final, including challenging the information’s accuracy and submitting evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances;
•     the deadline to respond (no less than five business days after receipt of the notice, and email notice is considered received two business days after it is sent).

If the applicant timely notifies the employer in writing that additional time is needed to respond, the applicant must be given at least five additional business days to respond to the notice before the employer’s preliminary decision becomes final.

The new regulations also expressly prohibit employers from (1) mandating that the applicant respond to the notice or provide information or (2) refusing to consider any information provided by the applicant. The employer must notify the applicant in writing of any final decision to rescind the offer and include information regarding available procedures to challenge the decision and the right to contest the decision by filing a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department.

Why this matters:

Violations of the new regulations can result in damages for failure to consider the new criminal evaluation factors, including back pay, front pay, and hiring or reinstatement.

What else still matters:

City of Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance (FCIHO)

•     The FCIHO applies broadly to businesses in the city that employ at least 10 people, with certain exceptions.
•     Employers may not ask about an applicant’s record until a conditional offer of employment has been extended.
•     After learning of an applicant’s record, employers must perform an individualized assessment and consider factors including (i) the age of the offense, (ii) the nature of the offense, and (iii) specific duties of the job sought. Written notice must be provided to applicants.
•     The ordinance provides aggrieved job applicants a private right of action.

City & County of San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance (FCO)

•     The FCO applies to employers with 5 or more employees worldwide and all City contractors, subcontractors, and leaseholders.
•     Employers may not conduct a background check or ask about criminal records until after making a conditional offer of employment.
•     After learning of an applicant’s record, an employer shall conduct an individualized assessment, considering only (i) directly related convictions, (ii) the time that has elapsed since the conviction or unresolved arrest, and (iii) any evidence of inaccuracy or evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigating factors.
•     The employer must provide the applicant with a copy of the FCO Notice and background check report. The applicant has seven days to respond for the purpose of correcting the record, providing evidence of rehabilitation, or any other mitigating factors.
•     Applicants may bring a civil action against the employer or other person violating this FCO.

Best practices:

California state law, the FCIHO, and FCO all require employers to make a conditional offer of employment before considering an applicant’s criminal history. As a best practice, employers should consider using a two-step process when obtaining a background check report. The first step involves obtaining all non-criminal checks, such as a review of the applicant’s employment and educational history. The second step involves obtaining the applicant’s criminal record history after a conditional offer of employment is made.

Several other cities and Hawaii have enacted “ban-the-box” or “fair chance laws” that require a conditional offer of employment be made to applicants before a criminal background check can be made.

How SI can help:

Experienced in preparing background check reports using a two-step process, SI makes the process seamless. We can also provide sample adverse action notices and other guidance.

Disclaimer: This communication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No recipient should act or refrain from acting based on any information provided here without advice from a qualified attorney licensed in the applicable jurisdiction.

|Compliance Corner, Employment Decisions|

New York Civil Cases and the RJI

State courts often have some quirky procedures, and the New York Supreme Court is no exception. Civil records from the New York Supreme Court typically include a reference to an “RJI” and whether it has been filed. What does “RJI” mean?

Definition: RJI is an abbreviation for “Request for Judicial Intervention.” It’s a form that is filed by either a plaintiff or defendant sometime after the summons and complaint is served on the defendant in a civil case.

Filing Effect: When an RJI is filed, the civil case is assigned to a judge.

What does this mean? When a plaintiff files a complaint in the New York Supreme Court to start a civil case, the court’s only action is to assign the case an index number. The court will not take any other action regarding the case – such as deciding a motion or order to show cause or hold a conference or trial – until either the plaintiff or defendant files an RJI. When the RJI is filed, the case is assigned randomly to a judge who will decide everything in the case until it is over.

How long will a case stay in the pre-RJI status? Because New York law does not specify a time limit for pre-RJI status, a civil case could be pending for years without any activity showing on the publicly available docket other than the filing and service of the summons and complaint.

That is the quirk in the New York Supreme Court civil case procedures – the possibility of a lengthy period of no case activity during the pre-RJI status.

To ensure that a civil case is timely prosecuted, many state courts assign a judge to a civil case when the summons and complaint are filed.

|Compliance Corner|

How to consider sex offender registry records in California (Updated)

For California employers concerned about hiring sex offenders, there are a few important points to keep in mind.

An employer has a duty to keep the workplace free of sexual harassment and other forms of discrimination under state law. Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), an employer can face significant liability if it knowingly employs a sex offender and fails to take actions to protect its other employees from unlawful behavior by that person.

To avoid this problem, employers would like to know if they are hiring a registered sex offender. But how can they find out?

Since 2005, the state has operated a Megan’s Law website with a database to obtain access to the state’s list of more than 100,000 registered sex offenders. Created to help state residents better protect their families by being able to search for an individual registrant or by geographic location, the site (https://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/Default.aspx) contains the sex offender’s name, aliases, age, gender, race, address, physical description and, in some cases, a photograph.

While the site would appear to be a boon for employers, state law expressly forbids use of the state’s sex offender registry information for employment purposes. California Penal Code section 209.46(l)(2)(E) prohibits the use of information disclosed on the website for purposes relating to health insurance, insurance, loans, credit, education, housing and employment, among other uses.

Statutory exceptions provide for use “to protect a person at risk,” a term not defined by the Penal Code, as well as for employers required by law or authorized to request criminal history from the California Department of Justice. Examples of businesses that meet this standard may include child care centers, financial institutions and governmental agencies.

An employer who runs afoul of the Penal Code’s prohibition can face actual and exemplary damages, attorneys’ fees and a civil fine. Legislative history explains that the website attempts to protect the public while not inflicting additional punishment on registrants.

For employers trying to walk the fine line of protecting other employees and third parties, such as customers, from potential sex offender registrant employees while not violating the Penal Code, two alternate avenues exist to try to find out information about a sex offender: conviction records and employee/applicant self-disclosure.

Following applicable state and federal law, employers can conduct a criminal background check on applicants and employees and learn of a sex offense conviction. (However, convictions past the seven-year cut-off date in California may not appear on a background check report while the individual may still appear in the sex offender registry). An applicant or employee may also self-disclose a conviction.

Providing another wrinkle for California employers, the state’s Fair Chance Act took effect on January 1, 2018, mandating that employers with five or more employees must wait until after a conditional offer of employment has been made to ask any questions about criminal history. This includes inquiries about convictions, running a background check or other efforts to find out about an applicant’s criminal past.

If the employer decides not to hire the applicant, it must conduct an individualized assessment of the conviction at issue to evaluate whether it has a “direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position.” Other legal requirements, based on both state and federal law, must also be satisfied if an employer takes an adverse action on the basis of the background check (see our prior blog post (https://scherzer.co/reminder-to-california-employers-about-requirements-when-taking-adverse-action-based-on-a-criminal-record/) for more details).

What if an employer learns that an employee is a registered sex offender from another employee’s perusal of the Megan’s Law website? This situation could trigger liability under section 290.46 and employers should be careful to take action only after evaluating any potential risk the sex offender employee may pose to coworkers or customers, considering all the facts and circumstances.

|Compliance Corner|

Expungement of Criminal Convictions – California Style

Some states allow a defendant convicted of a crime to apply for a court order limiting public access to the conviction record or to restore rights and remove disabilities caused by the conviction. This type of order is commonly referred to as an expungement; however, the qualifications for obtaining an expungement and the effect of the expungement vary among the states that allow expungements.

California has an expungement procedure set forth in Penal Code 1203.4. If a defendant meets the qualification of Penal Code 1203.4, the court will allow the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest, to reenter a plea of not guilty, and to have the case dismissed. The defendant is also relieved from many of the negative consequences of a criminal conviction.

When reviewing California criminal records showing a conviction, it is important to note if there is also a reference to a Penal Code 1203.4 dismissal because this can impact whether the record is reportable in a background check for a California employer. For example, California law does not allow the reporting of criminal records that result in a non-conviction in employment-purpose reports. Even though the record shows a conviction, the Penal Code 1203.4 dismissal effectively means the conviction never happened.

The reference to the code section will typically be found on the case docket, dated a year or so after the conviction date.

|Compliance Corner|

California’s overlapping background check laws

For many years, employers have struggled with California’s overlapping statutes governing the use of background checks. Now, the state’s highest court has weighed in, ruling that compliance with the requirements of both laws is mandatory, even where the laws overlap.

A little history is necessary to understand the situation. In 1970, Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The law defined the term “consumer report” to include an individual’s “credit worthiness, credit standing, credit capacity, character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living.” The FCRA distinguished between consumer reports that contained information obtained by personal interviews and consumer reports gathered by other means.

The California legislature responded with two state analogues in 1975: the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA) and the Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (CCRAA). Modeled on the FCRA, the statutes had similar purposes and were intended to serve complementary goals.

As originally enacted, the ICRAA applied to consumer reports that included character information obtained only through personal interviews. It defined an “investigative consumer report” as one “in which information on a consumer’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living is obtained through any means.” The statute requires that the person procuring the report provide the consumer a “clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing” and that the consumer in turn provide a written authorization for the report’s procurement.

Lawmakers took a slightly different approach with CCRAA, which defined a “consumer credit report” as “any written, oral or other communication of any information by a consumer reporting agency bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity, which is used or is expected to be used … for … employment purposes.” The definition excluded “any report containing information solely on a consumer’s character, general reputation, personal characteristics, or mode of living which is obtained through personal interviews with neighbors, friends, or associates of the consumer reported on, or others with whom he is acquainted or who may have knowledge concerning any such items of information.”

In 1998, the California legislature amended ICRAA to eliminate the personal interview limitation and expand the statute’s scope to include character information obtained under CCRAA or “obtained through any means.”

Since then, CCRAA continues to govern consumer reports that include character information obtained from a source other than personal interviews, as long as those reports contain information “bearing on a consumer’s credit worthiness, credit standing, or credit capacity.”

What does all this mean for employers? And how did the California Supreme Court get involved?

The two statutes came to the attention of the court when a group of current and former school bus drivers filed suit against their employers, First Student and First Transit, as well as the investigative consumer reporting agency (ICRA) that conducted background checks on the drivers. Eileen Connor led the class action.

After First Student acquired the company where Connor worked as a driver, it requested that the ICRA run background checks to confirm that Connor and the other workers were properly qualified to perform their job duties. The background reports elicited information about the employees’ criminal records, sex offender registries, address history, driving records and employment history.

Prior to conducting the background checks, First Student sent Connor a “Safety Packet” booklet. The booklet included an “Investigative Consumer Report Disclosure and Release” that provided authorization for the ICRA to prepare a consumer report or investigative consumer report. The notice included a checkbox that generally described Connor’s rights under ICRAA, informed her that she could check the box if she wanted to receive a copy of the report and released First Student from all claims and damages arising out of or relating to its background investigation if the box was checked.

Connor filed suit, arguing that the notice failed to satisfy ICRAA’s specific requirements and that First Student neglected to obtain her written authorization to conduct the background check, as required by ICRAA.

First Student asked the court to dismiss the suit, arguing that ICRAA is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the lawsuit because it overlaps with CCRAA and that the notice satisfied CCRAA.

The California Supreme Court found that while the statutes overlap to some degree, achieving compliance with both did not render ICRAA unconstitutional. The two statutes were not intended to be exclusive of each other, the court said, and potential employers can comply with both statutes without undermining the purpose of either.

“If an employer seeks a consumer’s credit records exclusively, then the employer need only comply with CCRAA,” the court explained. “An employer seeking other information that is obtained by any means must comply with ICRAA. In the event that any other information revealed in an ICRAA background check contains a subject’s credit information and the two statutes thus overlap, a regulated party is expected to know and follow the requirements of both statutes, even if that requires greater formality in obtaining a consumer’s credit records.”

First Student complained that because the ICRAA and CCRAA cover the same subject matter, it was unclear which statute applied in the context of employment background checks. But the court disagreed. Connor’s report, for example, fell within the scope of both statutes and “such a duality does not make legal compliance particularly difficult, must less impossible,” the court said.

“Any partial overlap between the statutes does not render one superfluous or unconstitutionally vague,” the court wrote. “They can coexist because both acts are sufficiently clear and each act regulates information that the other does not.”

The California Supreme Court opinion was a loss for First Student and the ICRA, as the court found the defendants had no excuse for not complying with both statutes. For employers more generally, the decision sends an important message: compliance with the requirements of both ICRAA and CCRAA is mandatory, even where the two statutes overlap.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|

Reminder to California employers about requirements when taking adverse action based on a criminal record

With the enactment of an updated ban-the-box statute (the Fair Chance Act) on January 1, 2018, employers in California may need a refresher on how to take adverse action based on the criminal record of an applicant.

For those businesses located in Los Angeles, the requirements take on an additional level of complication due to slight differences in the city’s ordinance.

Pursuant to California law, employers with five or more employees must wait until after a conditional offer of employment has been made to ask any questions about a criminal history. This means inquiries about convictions, running a background check or other efforts to find out about an applicant’s criminal past.

As an aside, several types of criminal records are not allowed to be used by employers in the hiring process (including juvenile records, diversions and deferrals, non-felony marijuana convictions that are more than two years old and arrests that did not lead to a conviction).If the employer decides not to hire the applicant, it must conduct an individualized assessment of the conviction at issue to evaluate whether it has a “direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position.”

The applicant needs to be notified of the potential for adverse action based on the conviction. Such notice must identify the conviction at issue and include a copy of any background check report; the employer must also provide a deadline for the applicant to submit additional information with regard to the conviction (such as rehabilitation efforts or other mitigating circumstances).

Federal law also kicks in. For those employers that intend to rely in whole or in part on a background check report to take adverse action such as rescinding a conditional job offer, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) mandates that applicants be given a pre-adverse action notice, a copy of the report and a notice of rights.

Once the applicant has provided any information and the employer makes a final decision, a second notice is required. This time, the notice should inform the applicant of the final adverse action, explain any procedure in place for the applicant to challenge the decision or request reconsideration and describe the applicant’s right to file a complaint with the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). If the FCRA has been triggered by the use of a background check report, the employer must also provide the applicant with an adverse action notice that contains FCRA-required text.

While this process may seem onerous, employers that hire workers in Los Angeles face additional requirements under the city’s Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring Ordinance (FCIHO). The law, which took effect on January 22, 2017, applies to employers with 10 or more workers (defined to include individuals who perform at least two hours of work on average in Los Angeles and are covered by the state’s minimum wage law).

The FCIHO has a narrower definition of a “conditional offer of employment” than that under state law – here, an offer of employment to an applicant “is conditioned only on an assessment of the applicant’s criminal history, if any, and the duties and responsibilities of the employment position.”

Regardless of the source of criminal history, if an employer elects not to hire an applicant, a written assessment that “effectively links the specific aspects of the applicant’s criminal history with risks inherent in the duties of the employment position sought by the applicant” must be performed.

This assessment needs to be provided to the applicant as part of the “fair chance process,” along with any other documentation or information used by the employer as well as a pre-adverse action notice. Again, if a background check report was used, the FCRA requirements apply. The applicant also receives an opportunity to share information the employer should consider before making a final decision, such as evidence of rehabilitation.

After at least five business days, the employer may make a final decision. If the applicant provided additional documentation or information, the employer is obligated to consider it and conduct a written reassessment. If the employer decides to take adverse action against the applicant anyway, the employer must notify the applicant and provide a copy of the reassessment along with the adverse action notice.

|Employment Decisions, Legislation|