BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó

          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                       AB 1843|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                              |
          |(916) 651-1520    Fax: (916)      |                              |
          |327-4478                          |                              |

                                   THIRD READING 

          Bill No:  AB 1843
          Author:   Mark Stone (D) 
          Amended:  5/27/16 in Senate
          Vote:     21 

           SENATE LABOR & IND. REL. COMMITTEE:  4-1, 6/22/16
           AYES:  Mendoza, Jackson, Leno, Mitchell
           NOES:  Stone


           ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  48-28, 4/25/16 - See last page for vote

           SUBJECT:   Applicants for employment:  criminal history

          SOURCE:    Juvenile Court Judges of California

          DIGEST:   This bill prohibits employers from using as a  
          condition of employment, or from asking applicants to disclose,  
          any information related to an applicant's arrest, detention or  
          involvement in any other specified process under the  
          jurisdiction of juvenile court law, provided that it did not  
          result in a conviction. This bill also excludes juvenile court  
          processes, programs, and actions from the definition of  
          conviction and from disclosure or consideration as a condition  
          employment. Also, this bill expands the prohibition on the  
          exposure or possession of juvenile offender record information.



                                                                    AB 1843  
                                                                    Page  2

          Existing law:

          1)Prohibits employers from asking an applicant for employment to  
            disclose, or from factoring as any condition of employment,  
            information concerning an arrest or detention that did not  
            result in a conviction, a referral or participation in any  
            pretrial or post-trial diversion program, or a conviction that  
            has been dismissed or ordered sealed, with the exception of  
            sealed juvenile court records, and others as specified (Labor  
            Code §432.7).

          2)Forbids those who are authorized to possess, access, or  
            receive criminal offender record information maintained by a  
            local law enforcement criminal justice agency pertaining to an  
            arrest or detention or proceeding that did not result in a  
            conviction, including a referral to, and participation in, any  
            pretrial or post-trial diversion program, to disclose such  
            information to any person not authorized by law to receive it  
            (Labor Code §432.7).

          3)Defines "conviction" to include a plea, verdict, or finding of  
            guilt regardless of whether a sentence is imposed by the court  
            (Labor Code §432.7). 

          This bill: 

          1)Prohibits employers from asking an applicant for employment to  
            disclose 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,  
            or seek or utilize any such information as a factor in  
            determining any condition of employment.

          2)Clarifies that the current definition of "conviction" under  
            existing law does not include any adjudication by a juvenile  
            court or any other court order or action taken with respect to  
            a person under the process and jurisdiction of juvenile court  


                                                                    AB 1843  
                                                                    Page  3


          3)Expands the prohibition on the disclosure, possession, or  
            receipt of juvenile offender record information pertaining to  
            an arrest or detention or proceeding that did not result in a  

          4)Includes participation in programs dealing with juveniles in  
            the definition of pretrial and post-trial diversion programs  
            that employers are prohibited from asking an applicant about,  
            or from factoring as a condition of employment.  


          Need for this bill? Current law protects the records of adults  
          who have had arrests that did not lead to a conviction and  
          adults who have had their records ordered or automatically  
          sealed from disclosure to potential employers during the hiring  
          process.  The legal effect of sealing and dismissal is that the  
          offense is deemed not to have occurred. 

          The author believes that these types of protections are  
          important components of reducing recidivism because the presence  
          of a criminal history has been shown to reduce the likelihood of  
          hiring and interview callbacks. While these types of employment  
          and hiring protections exist for adult records, they do not  
          exist for juveniles.  This bill seeks to provide the same  
          protections against employer inquiries into juvenile offender  
          criminal histories as those enjoyed by adults.  In doing so, the  
          author believes that this bill will help improve the employment  
          prospects of these affected individuals and thus reduce  

          FISCAL EFFECT:   Appropriation:    No          Fiscal  
          Com.:YesLocal:   Yes


                                                                    AB 1843  
                                                                    Page  4

          SUPPORT:   (Verified8/2/16)

          Juvenile Court Judges of California (source) 
          California Department of Justice, Attorney General Kamala D.  
          California Catholic Conference 
          California Teachers Association 
          COMMONWEAL: The Juvenile Justice Program
          Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
          LIUNA Locals 777 & 792 
          National Association of Social Workers

          OPPOSITION:   (Verified8/2/16)

          California Association of Health Facilities
          California Chamber of Commerce
          California Hospital Association

          ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:     Proponents state that under current  
          law, people with sealed juvenile records do not have the same  
          rights as adults with sealed criminal records. Not only is this  
          treatment unequal and unfair, but California law attempts to  
          give juveniles an opportunity to demonstrate they can be  
          rehabilitated.  Regrettably, existing law can serve as a barrier  
          to employment and does not reflect state policy regarding  
          juvenile rehabilitation. Juvenile records should be treated in  
          the same way that adult criminal records are treated when an  
          employer is questioning a job applicant.  Proponents believe  
          that employer questioning about sealed juvenile records should  
          be prohibited.

          Proponents add that several other states have strong, effective  
          laws protecting job applicants from having employers question  
          them about sealed juvenile records. Colorado, Illinois,  
          Nebraska, Oregon, Connecticut, and North Carolina, in  
          particular, restrict employer questioning of job applicants  
          concerning sealed juvenile records.  In California and around  


                                                                    AB 1843  
                                                                    Page  5

          the nation there is a growing juvenile justice system emphasis  
          on removing barriers to employment, higher education, and  
          military service for individuals emerging from juvenile justice  
          system involvement. Proponents argue that this bill is fully  
          consistent with that trend.

          ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:     The California Hospital Association  
          (CHA) states that California law provides health facilities with  
          the ability to inquire into arrest records for specified crimes  
          if the applicant would have access to patients or drugs. This  
          information may be solicited and used based on specific facts  
          and circumstances. Thus, if an applicant for a position in the  
          pharmacy disclosed that he had been arrested for a drug-related  
          crime 20 years ago and the charges were dropped, that would be  
          treated differently than if the individual had been arrested for  
          the same crime six months ago and the charges were still  

          Given the myriad situations that pose risks for patients, CHA  
          believes that hospitals need to know the criminal history of  
          applicants. Where an applicant discloses a conviction for  
          assault 20 years ago but has a stellar employment history since  
          that time, that conviction may not preclude employment. However,  
          given the hospital environment, a similar conviction that is  
          more recent may justifiably preclude employment in a position  
          where the individual would have access to patients. They argue  
          that this overriding patient care concern does not distinguish  
          between an adult criminal conviction or a juvenile adjudication.

          The California Chamber of Commerce argues that employers should  
          have access to juvenile adjudication determinations of the  
          court. Specifically, they believe that if a juvenile was found  
          guilty of a crime, that employers should be able to inquire  
          about such determinations in order to maintain a safe  
          environment for employees and consumers.

          ASSEMBLY FLOOR:  48-28, 4/25/16
          AYES:  Alejo, Arambula, Atkins, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,  
            Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper,  
            Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia,  


                                                                    AB 1843  
                                                                    Page  6

            Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger  
            Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Levine, Lopez, Low,  
            McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk,  
            Ridley-Thomas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber,  
            Wood, Rendon
          NOES:  Achadjian, Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chávez,  
            Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper,  
            Irwin, Jones, Kim, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes,  
            Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner,  
            Waldron, Wilk
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Chang, Olsen, Rodriguez, Williams

          Prepared by:Brandon Seto / L. & I.R. / (916) 651-1556
          8/3/16 19:24:09

                                   ****  END  ****