Reported / Citable
Background
Two applicants sought jobs with the Los Angeles Unified School District after misdemeanor convictions had been dismissed under California expungement procedures. One had a misdemeanor battery conviction and the other a misdemeanor conviction involving a controlled substance. LAUSD learned of the records and rejected both applicants.
The applicants sued under Labor Code section 432.7, California’s nondisclosure statute governing specified criminal-history information in employment. Separate trial judges granted summary judgment to the applicants. LAUSD appealed, arguing that exceptions applicable to school districts and credential-related screening permitted it to rely on the dismissed convictions.
The Court’s Holding
The Second District affirmed. Section 432.7’s basic prohibition prevented LAUSD from asking about or using the judicially dismissed misdemeanor convictions, and the exceptions invoked by the district did not cover these applicants on these facts. The court read the statute’s detailed exceptions narrowly rather than allowing general school-safety concerns to swallow the Legislature’s protection for rehabilitated applicants.
The court also found the legislative history consistent with the text. California repeatedly adjusted the boundary between employer access to criminal records and the policy of preventing old, minor offenses from becoming permanent barriers to work. Where the Legislature created particular exceptions, courts may not expand them beyond their stated reach.
Key Takeaways
- California employers generally may not use convictions that fall within Labor Code section 432.7’s nondisclosure protection.
- Public-school employers are not automatically exempt from the statute merely because a position involves students.
- Employers should match a claimed exception to the applicant, position, and precise statutory language before taking adverse action.
- Background-check policies should distinguish dismissed misdemeanor records from convictions the law affirmatively requires an employer to consider.
Why It Matters
The ruling is important for public agencies and other regulated employers that conduct intensive screening. A legitimate safety mission does not create a free-floating right to use every record uncovered in a background check.
For applicants, the decision gives practical force to expungement and rehabilitation policy. For employers, it underscores the need for position-specific review, documented statutory authority, and careful adverse-action procedures instead of blanket exclusions.
The court’s approach reflects the structure of section 432.7. The statute begins with a broad restriction and then identifies circumstances in which particular employers may obtain or use particular information. LAUSD could not combine provisions aimed at different screening duties into a general permission to treat dismissed convictions as current disqualifications. The relevant question was not whether the district could investigate applicant fitness in the abstract, but whether a specified exception authorized these decisions based on these records.
Employers should audit forms, vendor instructions, and internal review matrices together. A compliant background-check vendor may still deliver information that the ultimate decision-maker cannot lawfully use. Human-resources staff should record the legal basis for any exception, limit access to covered positions, and give reviewers guidance on dismissed records. Applicants and their counsel, meanwhile, should obtain the dismissal record and ask the employer to identify the exact statute supporting an adverse decision.