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 SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: Senate Rule 28.8 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. ANALYSIS: 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 law. 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 conviction. 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. Comments 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 recidivism. 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. Harris California Catholic Conference California Teachers Association COMMONWEAL: The Juvenile Justice Program Hillsides 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 pending. 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 ****