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: 8/11/16 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.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/11/16 specify that an employer can
inquire into an applicant's juvenile criminal background if a
juvenile court made a final ruling, or adjudication, that the
AB 1843
Page 2
applicant had committed a felony or misdemeanor relating to sex
crimes or certain controlled substances crimes within five years
prior to applying for employment. Employers making such
inquiries would also be required to provide those affected
applicants with a list describing the specific drug and sex
crime offenses about which they may inquire under the provisions
of this bill. The amendments also stipulate that employers
cannot inquire into an applicant's sealed juvenile criminal
records. Finally, the amendments make related technical
formatting changes.
ANALYSIS:
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:
AB 1843
Page 3
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
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
AB 1843
Page 4
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
SUPPORT: (Verified8/15/16)
Juvenile Court Judges of California (source)
California Catholic Conference
California Department of Justice, Attorney General Kamala D.
Harris
California Employment Lawyers Association
California Teachers Association
COMMONWEAL: The Juvenile Justice Program
Hillsides
Legal Services for Prisoners with Children
LIUNA Locals 777 & 792
National Association of Social Workers
The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice
Women in Non-Traditional Employment Roles
OPPOSITION: (Verified8/15/16)
American Petroleum and Convenience Store Association
California Ambulance Association
California Association of Health Facilities
California Attractions and Parks Association
California Chamber of Commerce
California Grocers Association
California Hospital Association
AB 1843
Page 5
California League of Food Processors
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
California State Council for the Society for Human Resource
Management
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
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
AB 1843
Page 6
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,
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
8/15/16 20:26:58
**** END ****
AB 1843
Page 7