Back in February, 2024, the Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance for Employers (the “FCO”) was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. The FCO became operative and subject to enforcement on September 3, 2024 and adds a variety of additional compliance obligations for covered employers and added protections for covered applicants and employees, above and beyond what existing state law requires. Covered employers must ensure that they comply with the stricter of state and local laws governing the use of criminal history in employment.
The new FCO specifically applies to employers that (1) do business in the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County and (2) employ at least 5 employees, regardless of their location and inclusive of owners, managers, and individuals providing services pursuant to a contract. A list of the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County can be found here.
Unlike the California Fair Chance Act, which restricts employers’ use of criminal history to evaluate applicants, the Los Angeles County FCO expressly provides broad protections for both new applicants and current employees, including those who are seeking promotions with their current employer. An employee must perform at least two hours of work on average per week within the unincorporated areas of the County to be covered by the FCO.
The FCO contains a variety of requirements applicable to covered applicants and employees, including:
- Employers cannot prevent or discourage employees with criminal history from applying for roles. All job postings must include specified language that the employer will consider qualified applicants with arrests or conviction records in accordance with law.
- If an employer intends to review criminal history in connection with a conditional offer of employment, the employer must include in the job posting all material job duties that the employer reasonably believes that criminal history may negative and directly impact, potentially resulting in withdrawal of the offer.
- Employers cannot inquire into an applicant or employee’s criminal history before making a conditional offer of employment, and must provide specific written notice that criminal history will be reviewed with the conditional offer. If the employer is going to request a criminal history report, the employer also cannot ask the applicant or employee for information about their criminal history before the employer receives the background check report. The employer must provide a copy of the report to the applicant or employee.
- There are restrictions on the types of criminal history that may be inquired into or upon which an adverse action may be based. This includes, with limited exceptions, a prohibition against consideration of a conviction that is more than seven years old, measured from the date of disposition.
- There are requirements for an employer to conduct an individualized assessment in writing of the direct and negative impact of the criminal history on the ability to perform job duties, before taking an adverse action or denying the applicant or employee a position; to provide preliminary notice of the proposed adverse action to the applicant or employee; to receive and consider any additional information the applicant or employee wishes to provide; and to provide specified final notice to the applicant or employee. The employer must share its individualized assessments with the applicant or employee.
- There are requirements to post the FCO notice in a conspicuous place in the workplace and on webpages frequently visited by employees, in English and any other language spoken by at least 10% of the workforce. The model English notice is available here.
- Employers must retain records relating to their compliance with the FCO (such as job postings, employment applications, individualized assessments, notices, conditional offers, rescissions of offers, and any correspondence from the employer, applicants, and any third parties relating to the FCO) for at least 4 years following the employer’s receipt of the applicant’s application.
Additional details and information about the FCO can be found within the County’s FAQs webpage. In addition, the County will soon be publishing Rules and Regulations to clarify the FCO, which will be posted here.
Employers with questions about the FCO or the use of criminal history in employment may contact the authors of this article or their usual AALRR counsel.
This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.
© 2024 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
- Partner
Jennifer Grock focuses her practice on advising and counseling employers on all aspects of the employment relationship. She is dedicated to client service and believes in taking a proactive approach that emphasizes each ...
- Partner
Jonathan Judge heads the Private Labor and Employment Group’s Advice and Counsel Team of attorneys. He represents clients, large and small, in employment advice and counsel matters including wage and hour, leaves of absence, and ...
Other AALRR Blogs
Recent Posts
- An Early Holiday Present For Employers Facing Out Of Control Plaintiff Attorney Greed
- California’s Minimum Wage to Increase to $16.50 Per Hour January 1, 2025
- New San Diego County Fair Chance Ordinance Restricts Employers’ Use of Criminal History
- New Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance Restricts Employers’ Use of Criminal History
- Legislation Impacting California Employee Handbook Policies for 2025
- Update on the California Health Care Minimum Wage
- Resources for California Employers to Track and Confirm Their State and Local Minimum Wage Requirements
- 11 Local Minimum Wage Ordinances Poised to Increase on July 1, 2024
- Fast Food Restaurants -- Be Prepared for a DIR Audit
- U.S. Supreme Court Lowers Bar for Proving Discrimination Claims
Popular Categories
- (37)
- (156)
- (54)
- (39)
- (25)
- (7)
- (42)
- (23)
- (15)
- (15)
- (6)
- (7)
- (6)
- (6)
- (9)
- (6)
- (4)
- (2)
- (3)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (2)
- (3)
- (3)
- (1)
- (1)
- (2)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
- (1)
Contributors
- Cindy Strom Arellano
- Sarkis A. Atoyan
- Eddy R. Beltran
- William M. Betley
- Brigham M. Cheney
- Michele L. Collender
- Kevin R. Dale
- Scott K. Dauscher
- Alexandria M. Davidson
- William A. Diedrich
- Paul S. Fleck
- Lauren S. Gafa
- L. Brent Garrett
- Evan J. Gautier
- Carol A. Gefis
- Jennifer S. Grock
- Jonathan Judge
- David Kang
- Nate J. Kowalski
- Joshua N. Lange
- Catherine M. Lee
- Thomas A. Lenz
- David M. Lester
- Martin S. Li
- Jorge J. Luna
- Brian D. Martin
- Ronald W. Novotny
- Michael J. O'Connor, Jr.
- Aaron V. O'Donnell
- Shawn M. Ogle
- Sharon J. Ormond
- Nora Pasin
- Joseph E. Pelochino
- Chesley D. Quaide
- Todd M. Robbins
- Irma Rodríguez Moisa
- Saba Salamatian
- Casandra P. Secord
- Jon M. Setoguchi
- Ann K. Smith
- Amber M. Solano
- Susana P. Solano
- Susan M. Steward
- April Szabo
- Jay G. Trinnaman
- Jonathan S. Vick
- Robert L. Wenzel
- Brian M. Wheeler
- Glen A. Williams
Archives
2024
2023
2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
2020
- December 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- January 2020
2019
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
2018
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
2017
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
2016
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
2015
- December 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
2011
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011