BILL ANALYSIS Ó
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Kevin de León, Chair
AB 218 (Dickinson) - Employment Applications: Criminal History
Amended: May 24, 2013 Policy Vote: L&IR 3-1, Judiciary
4-2
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: August 30, 2013
Consultant: Robert Ingenito
SUSPENSE FILE.
Bill Summary: AB 218 would do both of the following:
Prohibit a state or local agency from asking employment
applicants to disclose information regarding their
conviction history until the agency has determined an
applicant meets the position's minimum employment
qualifications.
Exempt from that prohibition a position for which a
state or local agency is otherwise required by law to
conduct a conviction history background check, to any
position within a criminal justice agency, or to any
individual working on a temporary or permanent basis for a
criminal justice agency on a contract basis or on loan from
another governmental entity.
Fiscal Impact:
The State has over 6,000 local governmental entities
(including county governments, cities, and special
districts). This bill would require an unknown number of
them to make modifications to their hiring process,
potentially consisting of revising forms, training staff
and updating personnel policies and procedures.
Thus, this bill could result in a reimbursable state
mandate for a local governmental entity that submits a
claim (for incurring costs exceeding $1,000). While the
number of local jurisdictions submitting claims is unknown,
the total cost is likely to exceed $50,000 (General Fund)
on a one-time basis. Once revised forms and procedures are
AB 218 (Dickinson)
Page 1
in place, ongoing costs are likely to be minor and
absorbable.
The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) estimates
that it would require $15,000 (special funds) to implement
the provisions of the bill.
Background: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII),
which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color,
religion, sex or national origin. The EEOC recently updated its
Enforcement Guidance regarding an employer's use of a criminal
history as part of the employment screening process.
EEOC notes that as with arrest records, which may include
inaccuracies or may continue to be reported even if expunged or
sealed, an employer's use of conviction records may not provide
the employer with accurate information. Current law prohibits a
public or private employer from inquiring into or requiring
disclosure of information concerning an arrest or detention of
an employment applicant that did not result in a conviction.
Proposed Law: This bill would require that state and local
agencies determine a job applicant's minimum qualifications
before obtaining and considering information regarding the
applicant's conviction history on an employment application.
Specifically, this bill would:
Commencing July 1, 2014, prohibit a state or local
agency from asking an applicant for employment to disclose,
orally or in writing, information concerning the conviction
history of the applicant until the agency has determined
that he/she meets the minimum employment qualifications, as
stated in any notice issued for the position.
Exempt from this prohibition, a position for which a
state or local agency is otherwise required by law to
conduct a conviction history background check, any position
within a criminal justice agency, as specified, and any
individual working on a temporary or permanent basis for a
criminal justice agency on a contract basis or on loan from
another governmental entity.
AB 218 (Dickinson)
Page 2
Specify that this section shall not be construed to
prevent a state or local agency from conducting a
conviction history background check after complying with
the provisions above.
Related Legislation: In 2012, AB 1831 (Dickinson), a similar
bill that only applied to cities and counties, was held in the
Senate Governance and Finance Committee.
Staff Comments: Although current data does not allow DIR's
Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to extrapolate an
estimate of its fiscal impact from AB 218, the potential impact
may be similar to the existing impact of the previously noted
current-law requirement that prohibits employers from requiring
disclosure of an applicant's detention or arrest record which
did not result in a conviction. The numbers of related
complaints has ranged for between 3-4 cases each year for three
of the last four calendar years.
As an order of magnitude, in order to process, investigate, and
determine violations for three additional cases, DIR estimated
cost would be $15,000.