CA AB 2095
introducedEmployment discrimination: conviction history.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 2095 pass?
Not yet. CA AB 2095 has been introduced but has not advanced to a vote. Latest recorded action (2026-05-28): Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Lee.
What is CA AB 2095 about?
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, except as specified, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer with 5 or more employees to include on any application for employment, before the employer makes a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, any question that seeks the disclosure of an applicant's conviction history, to consider the conviction history of the applicant until after the employer has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, or to distribute information about an arrest not followed by conviction, referral to or participation in a pretrial or posttrial diversion program, or convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated or any conviction for which the convicted person has received a full pardon or has been issued a certificate of rehabilitation while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, as specified. This bill would define the term "conviction or arrest record," for these purposes. The bill would include among those things that it is unlawful for an employer with 5 or more employees to do while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, asking any question that directly or indirectly seeks consent for a conviction history background check or requesting consent for or beginning a conviction history background check before providing the applicant with a list of all essential job duties, requiring a job applicant to cover the cost of a conviction history background check, or requiring any time before or after the conditional job offer, that an applicant self-disclose conviction history or provide the employer with any documentary evidence related to conviction history or rehabilitation, as specified. Existing law requires an employer that intends to deny an applicant a position of employment solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history to make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position considering specified factors. This bill, instead, would prohibit an employer from denying an applicant a position of employment or taking any other adverse action solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history unless the employer first, reasonably and in good faith, demonstrates via an individualized assessment, that the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justifies denying the applicant the position and it complies with a specified process. The bill would require the employer to commit the results of the individualized assessment to writing if it makes a decision to deny a position of employment or takes any adverse action. The bill would specify that it is not an adverse action for an employer to temporarily suspend an employee, with pay and for a reasonable amount of time, while the employer complies with the requirements of these provisions. Existing law makes these provisions inapplicable to a position as a farm labor contractor, as specified or to a position where an employer or agent thereof is required by any state, federal, or local law to conduct criminal background checks for employment purposes or to restrict employment based on criminal history. This bill would remove the exemption for farm labor contractors.
Who sponsors CA AB 2095?
Lee is the primary sponsor of CA AB 2095, joined by 1 cosponsor.
Description
Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, except as specified, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer with 5 or more employees to include on any application for employment, before the employer makes a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, any question that seeks the disclosure of an applicant's conviction history, to consider the conviction history of the applicant until after the employer has made a conditional offer of employment to the applicant, or to distribute information about an arrest not followed by conviction, referral to or participation in a pretrial or posttrial diversion program, or convictions that have been sealed, dismissed, expunged, or statutorily eradicated or any conviction for which the convicted person has received a full pardon or has been issued a certificate of rehabilitation while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, as specified. This bill would define the term "conviction or arrest record," for these purposes. The bill would include among those things that it is unlawful for an employer with 5 or more employees to do while conducting a conviction history background check in connection with an application for employment, asking any question that directly or indirectly seeks consent for a conviction history background check or requesting consent for or beginning a conviction history background check before providing the applicant with a list of all essential job duties, requiring a job applicant to cover the cost of a conviction history background check, or requiring any time before or after the conditional job offer, that an applicant self-disclose conviction history or provide the employer with any documentary evidence related to conviction history or rehabilitation, as specified. Existing law requires an employer that intends to deny an applicant a position of employment solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history to make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position considering specified factors. This bill, instead, would prohibit an employer from denying an applicant a position of employment or taking any other adverse action solely or in part because of the applicant's conviction history unless the employer first, reasonably and in good faith, demonstrates via an individualized assessment, that the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justifies denying the applicant the position and it complies with a specified process. The bill would require the employer to commit the results of the individualized assessment to writing if it makes a decision to deny a position of employment or takes any adverse action. The bill would specify that it is not an adverse action for an employer to temporarily suspend an employee, with pay and for a reasonable amount of time, while the employer complies with the requirements of these provisions. Existing law makes these provisions inapplicable to a position as a farm labor contractor, as specified or to a position where an employer or agent thereof is required by any state, federal, or local law to conduct criminal background checks for employment purposes or to restrict employment based on criminal history. This bill would remove the exemption for farm labor contractors.
- Introduced
- 2026-05-14
- Latest action
- 2026-05-28 — Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Lee.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Leeauthor
- Kalracoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-05-28
Ordered to inactive file at the request of Assembly Member Lee.
2026-05-19
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-05-18
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-05-14
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 4.) (May 14).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage
2026-04-29
In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file.
referral-committee
2026-04-15
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (April 14). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-04-15
Coauthors revised.
2026-04-09
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-03-09
Referred to Coms. on L. & E. and JUD.
referral-committee
2026-02-19
From printer. May be heard in committee March 21.
2026-02-18
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2026-04-08 · pass · 5-2
Member-level votes (7)
- Elhawary: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Ward: yes
- Lee: yes
- Chen: no
- Lackey: no
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-04-14 · pass · 7-3
Member-level votes (12)
- Zbur: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Dixon: no
- Macedo: no
- Sanchez: no
- Papan: other
- Bauer-Kahan: other
Do pass as amended.
2026-05-14 · pass · 11-4
Member-level votes (15)
- Krell: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Fong: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Solache: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Tangipa: no
- Ta: no
- Dixon: no
- Hoover: no
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 2095. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.