Civil Rights Council advances revised criminal‑history hiring regulations to another comment period

The California Civil Rights Council voted to move further modified text of proposed regulations on the use of criminal‑history information in employment into another 15‑day public comment period, approving an amendment to remove the word "eliminated" in two instances while keeping mitigation and accommodation considerations intact.

Council Member Jolie Wolinski, who presented the draft and the process history, said the revisions respond to public and council feedback from prior 45‑day and 15‑day comment periods and clarify where definitions and substantive provisions belong in the regulation text. "We have carefully reviewed and considered the comments that were raised both during the council meeting and submitted in writing to date," Wolinski said.

The changes the council discussed include clarifying that employers may consider evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances provided by the applicant (or by another party at the applicant's request), treating an applicant's age as a separate factor in some provisions, and adjusting disability‑related language so that the question is whether the likelihood of harm can be mitigated by a reasonable accommodation. Council Member Brodsky flagged the repeated use of the word "eliminated" in two clauses and proposed removing it; other members agreed to keep "mitigated" where appropriate but drop the later use of "eliminated."

Public commenters urged the council to strengthen protections for people with conviction histories. Sandra Johnson of Legal Aid at Work, speaking as a formerly incarcerated community organizer, urged the council to add language so that employers who revoke conditional job offers because of delays in background checks could be treated as having denied the offer based on conviction history. "These background checks may take longer for people that do have a conviction," Johnson said, arguing delays can result in rescinded offers that undermine the aims of the Fair Chance Act. Braden Lutsinger, also with Legal Aid at Work, urged the council to treat occupational licenses as determinative evidence that an applicant can perform job duties and to bar employers from penalizing applicants for disclosing and later discussing conviction history.

Council members voted by roll call to adopt the narrow amendment and to advance the text into another 15‑day comment period. The motion passed on a unanimous recorded vote of members present. Staff confirmed the department will post the revised language with the stated amendment and respond to comments in the eventual written initial statement of reasons.

What happens next: If the revised text moves forward after the comment period, the agency will prepare the administrative record and respond to written comments before any final adoption. The council encouraged stakeholders to submit written comments when the next formal comment window opens.