The San Francisco Fair Chance Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) took effect August 13, 2014. The Ordinance limits use of criminal conviction information in hiring and employment in a trend informally referred to as “Ban the Box” legislation.
The Ordinance (San Francisco Policy Code, Article 49 and Administrative Code, Article 12) (the "Ordinance") mostly builds upon existing California law, making parallel requirements under city law, but adding some key provisions that go beyond state law. Some of the overlap and additional requirements are highlighted below.
The Ordinance applies to employers with 20 or more employees, city contractors, and housing providers. According to the City’s Frequently Asked Questions regarding the Ordinance, “The [Ordinance] applies to private employers that are located or doing business in San Francisco, and that employ 20 or more persons worldwide. This 20-person threshold includes owner(s), management, and supervisorial employees. Job placement, referral agencies, and other employment agencies are considered employers.”
The prohibition against inquiries and considerations mostly parallels California Labor Code Section 432.7. However, the definition of "Unresolved Arrest" does not exist in the California Labor Code and is defined in the Ordinance as "an Arrest that is undergoing an active pending criminal investigation or trial that has not yet been resolved." Under the Labor Code, a permissible inquiry may be made as to "arrests for which the applicant is out on bail or on his or her own recognizance pending trial."
The Ordinance also prohibits inquiring into "(4) A Conviction or any other determination or adjudication in the juvenile justice system, or information regarding a matter considered in or processed through the juvenile justice system," which does not appear directly addressed by California statute.
The Ordinance overlaps and exceeds state law in several prohibitions. The Ordinance specifically addresses "(5) A Conviction that is more than seven years old," as a prohibited inquiry, which is similar to the prohibited inquiries under the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRA") (California Civil Code Section 1785.13) and the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act ("ICRA") (California Civil Code Section 1786.18), but which is not addressed under Labor Code Section 432.7. Also, "(6) Information pertaining to an offense other than a felony or misdemeanor, such as an infraction," is not specified in Labor Code Section 432.7, but the Labor Code effectively prohibits such inquiries.
The Ordinance requires additional notice to be provided to individuals who will be the subject of a criminal history inquiry. Employers must already provide notice under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA")(15 USC Section 1681), the CCRA, and ICRA, prior to conducting background checks, so this is an additional notice that must be provided.
Similarly, the Ordinance requires an additional pre-adverse notice to be made to an applicant or employee if an adverse decision will be made based on the criminal history discovered in a report. This builds upon existing obligations to provide pre-adverse information under the FCRA, which requires a copy of the report and a statement of rights be provided prior to the adverse action is taken. The Ordinance additionally requires provision of (1) notice of the prospective adverse action, and the (2) specified basis for the action. Following provision of this information, the employer must defer the adverse action for a "reasonable period of time" if within seven (7) days, the individual reports inaccuracy in the report or provides other mitigating evidence. The employer must reconsider the action and provide final notice of the action if it proceeds with the proposed adverse action. Such final notice is duplicative of requirements under the FCRA, CCRA, and ICRA.
The most onerous of the Ordinance requirements appears to be the requirement that job advertisements reasonably directed toward San Francisco applicants include a statement that the employer "will consider for employment qualified applicants with criminal histories in a manner consistent with the requirements of [the San Francisco Police Code, Article 49." Thus, employers must ensure that such wording is included in its print and electronic job solicitations directed toward San Francisco applicants.
Also, employers must post notice of the Ordinance in English, Spanish, Chinese, AND any language spoken by at least 5 percent of the employees at the workplace where the poster is posted. The notices may be obtained from the Fair Chance Ordinance website via these links in: English, Spanish, Chinese, and Tagalog.
Finally, employers must be aware that the Ordinance creates a "rebuttable presumption" that any adverse action taken against a person within 90 days of exercising rights protected by the Ordinance was taken in retaliation for the exercise of those rights." This creates a right not in existence under state law and exposes employers to potential liability under the Ordinance for adverse actions taken within the 90-day time frame.
To visit the Fair Chance Ordinance website, you may click here.
Employers should review their applications and intake procedures to ensure compliance with the Ordinance. Employers with questions regarding the San Francisco Ordinance may direct them to the authors. Questions about state and federal background check requirements may also be directed to the authors or other members of the firm’s Private Labor and Employment Group with whom they are familiar.
- 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