Caffarelli & Associates LtD

News

2 minutes read

Limitations on Criminal History Inquires for San Francisco Employers

Published

Effective August 13, 2014, the Fair Chance Ordinance restricts the ability of private San Francisco employers with 20 or more employees to inquire about and consider criminal history information for employment purposes. The Ordinance’s protections apply to applicants or employees whose place of employment is entirely or substantially located in San Francisco.
The Ordinance prohibits covered employers from making any inquiry regarding criminal history until after an initial job interview. The Ordinance specifically prohibits “check the box” type questions, which ask applicants and employees to provide information regarding criminal history. The Ordinance also specifies that employers may not indirectly ask about criminal history through the use of a background check or other means, until after an initial interview. Then, prior to conducting any criminal history inquiry, the employer must provide the applicant or employee with written notice of their rights under the Ordinance. In the event that an employer learns of criminal history information, the employer is limited in its ability to consider that information as a bar to employment. Rather, the employer must conduct an individualized assessment of the nature of the offense as it relates to the specific job position at issue, and may only consider the offense as a bar to employment if it has a “direct and specific negative bearing on that person’s ability to perform the duties or responsibilities necessarily related to the employment position.” If an employer does determine that it must take an adverse action against an employee or applicant based on criminal history information (such as a demotion, refusal to hire, termination, or failure to promote), the employer must first notify the applicant or employee of the intended decision in writing and allow the individual a week to respond.

Back to News

Recent Posts

Blog

A Call for Comprehensive Fee Shifting for Employment-Law Claims

By Alejandro Caffarelli, Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. Access to justice in employment law remains an elusive promise for the vast majority of American workers. While an array of federal and state laws purport to protect workers, the mechanisms for enforcing those rights are often inaccessible, rendering them meaningless. Administrative agencies and state equivalents tasked with investigating discrimination and wage violations, for example, are often chronically underfunded and subject to political erosion. As demonstrated by recent changes at the Equal Employment...

Read More
General

Supreme Court Bars State Administrative Hurdles for Federal Civil Rights Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday in the case of Williams v. Washington (No. 23-191) that an Alabama law requiring people to go through the state’s administrative process before filing federal civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 is unconstitutional. The 5-4 decision found that the law created an unfair barrier to asserting federal rights. The law, upheld by Alabama’s Supreme Court in 2023, required unemployment benefits claimants to complete the state’s appeals process before going to court....

Read More
General

Supreme Court Rules on FLSA Evidence Standards in Overtime Exemption Case

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Wednesday that disputes over Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemptions do not require heightened evidence standards. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, rejected employees’ arguments for a “clear and convincing evidence” standard, reaffirming that the preponderance of evidence standard is appropriate in civil litigation unless explicitly altered by statute, constitutional requirements, or precedent involving severe government actions. The case, EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera, centered on whether a higher standard should apply in...

Read More