BILL ANALYSIS
AB 2727
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 19, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2727 ( Bradford) - As Introduced: February 19, 2010
Policy Committee: Labor and
Employment Vote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill prohibits an employer from denying an application for
employment based on the individual's prior conviction for a
criminal offense, unless the employer determines that (a) there
is a direct relationship between the criminal offense and the
employment sought, or (b) the granting of employment would
involve an unreasonable risk to property or the safety of
welfare of specific persons or the general public. The bill
also:
1)Requires that, in making the determination, the employer take
into account a variety of factors, including: the public
policy of this state to encourage the employment of persons
previously convicted of criminal offences; the specific duties
of the employment sought; the time between conviction and
application; the seriousness of the offense; and the
legitimate interests of the employer to protect property and
the safety and welfare of specific individuals and the general
public.
2)Provides that violations are subject to civil remedies through
court actions.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Modest administrative cost increases to the state as an
employer, potentially exceeding $150,000 statewide, to the
extent the bill increases factors that must be considered in
hiring processes, and provides additional grounds for
administrative appeals and legal actions related to hiring
decisions.
AB 2727
Page 2
2)Unknown increase in workplace liability to the extent that
policies result in an even modest risk to workplace or public
safety and/or property.
3)Unknown increase in trial court costs, to the extent the bill
provides additional grounds for civil actions by denied job
applicants.
COMMENTS
1)Background . The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
enforces federal laws that prohibit employment discrimination.
It requires an employer, when faced with an allegation of
discrimination based on failing to hire as a result of a
conviction policy or practice, to determine whether the action
was justified by business necessity. According to EEOC, an
employer must show that it considered three factors to
determine whether its decision was justified by business
activity. The three factors include the nature and gravity of
the offense, the time that has passed since the conviction
and/or the completion of the sentence, and the nature of the
job sought.
Existing state law prohibits an employer from asking an
applicant to disclose an arrest or detention that did not
result in conviction, or using a prior arrest or detention
that did not result in a conviction as a factor when
determining employment, unless the applicant is seeking a
position in law enforcement or in a health facility.
2)Rationale . According to the author, this bill is intended to
codify existing federal EEOC policy into state law. The author
also asserts that the bill would empower employers to
determine whether a prior conviction would have a significant
effect on the future job performance of an applicant while
maintaining public safety.
3)Opponents . The bill is opposed by many private sector employer
associations, such as the California Chamber of Commerce, who
assert that it goes beyond current EEOC policy. They also
claim it places an unreasonable burden on employers, which
must take into account protections of the public, other
employees, and property when making hiring decisions. They
AB 2727
Page 3
also state that this bill would drive up employer costs,
encourage lawsuits and discourage economic activity. The
California Bankers Association asserts this bill does not take
into consideration businesses that must adhere to federal law
or regulation and may not hire an individual who has been
convicted of a crime.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081