AB 1067 adds Government Code section 7522.76 and requires a public employer to carry on an investigation into alleged misconduct that arises out of an employee’s official duties even if the employee retires while the probe is underway, provided the investigation indicates the employee may have committed a crime. If that threshold is met, the employer must refer the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency and may then close its internal inquiry.
On a subsequent felony conviction for covered conduct, the employee forfeits accrued retirement rights and benefits under California’s existing pension-forfeiture rules.
The change tightens the connection between internal employment investigations and criminal enforcement, shifts new procedural duties onto local employers, and clarifies that retirement will not shield an employee from forfeiture on conviction. The bill also labels the new obligations a state-mandated local program and preserves the Legislature’s existing statutory procedure for seeking reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates finds costs are imposed on local agencies.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires public employers to continue misconduct investigations that would otherwise stop when an employee retires, refer suspected criminal conduct to law enforcement, and then allows the employer to close its internal probe. If the ex-employee is later convicted of a qualifying felony tied to official duties, existing pension-forfeiture rules apply.
Who It Affects
Local public employers (cities, counties, special districts, school districts), public retirement systems that administer pensions, current and former public employees facing misconduct allegations, and district attorneys or other criminal investigators who receive referrals.
Why It Matters
It prevents retirement from being a de facto end to employer fact-finding when criminal conduct is implicated, creates new operational burdens for local agencies and pension administrators, and increases the likelihood that felony convictions tied to official duties will trigger pension forfeiture.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
California law already strips public workers of pension rights when they are convicted of certain felonies tied to their official duties. AB 1067 inserts a procedural bridge between employer misconduct probes and that forfeiture regime: when an employer’s investigation suggests the retired employee may have committed a crime, the employer must pursue the inquiry to the point of referral to law enforcement, even if the worker has retired.
After referring the case to prosecutors or police, the employer is permitted to close its internal investigation.
The bill does not change which crimes trigger forfeiture; it changes what employers must do when a retirement occurs mid‑investigation. Practically, agencies must preserve evidence, complete witness interviews as needed to establish whether criminal conduct is plausible, and prepare timely referrals.
AB 1067 gives employers discretion to end their internal inquiry after they hand the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency, but it does not prescribe deadlines or detailed procedures for the referral.If a covered former employee is subsequently convicted of a qualifying felony, the existing statutory forfeiture framework applies: the convicted person loses accrued rights and benefits in public retirement systems as provided by current law. The bill also expressly signals that these investigative duties impose a state-mandated local program and points to the statutory reimbursement process if the Commission on State Mandates finds costs are imposed.Operationally, the law affects three linked actors: the employer doing the initial fact-finding and referral, the criminal prosecutor deciding whether to charge, and the retirement system implementing forfeiture after a criminal judgment.
AB 1067 clarifies responsibilities at the investigatory stage but leaves a number of implementation details — such as timing, evidence standards for referral, and coordination among agencies — to local practice and interagency protocols.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Adds Government Code §7522.76, which compels a public employer to continue an investigation if the probe indicates the (retired) employee may have committed a crime.
Requires the employer to refer cases that indicate possible criminal conduct to the appropriate law enforcement agency; after referral the employer may close its internal investigation.
Does not expand the set of felonies that trigger forfeiture — it links existing forfeiture mechanics to investigations that survive an employee’s retirement.
On conviction for qualifying conduct, the bill enforces forfeiture of accrued retirement rights and benefits under the pension-forfeiture provisions already in law (with retroactivity running from the earliest date of commission to the conviction date as provided by existing statutes).
Labels the new duties a state-mandated local program and preserves the statutory route for reimbursement if the Commission on State Mandates finds costs are imposed on local entities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Obligation to continue investigations after retirement
This subsection requires a public employer that is already investigating misconduct arising from official duties to continue that investigation even if the employee retires while the matter is pending, but only when the investigation indicates the employee may have committed a crime. The practical effect is to prevent agencies from halting fact-finding solely because the subject leaves employment; agencies must therefore preserve records and maintain investigative continuity pending a referral decision.
Mandatory referral to law enforcement; option to close internal probe
When the employer’s continuing investigation indicates possible criminal conduct, the employer must refer the matter to the appropriate law enforcement agency. Once the referral is made, the statute authorizes (but does not require) the employer to close its internal investigation. That creates a clear handoff to criminal authorities while leaving agencies discretion about whether to run parallel administrative processes.
Application of existing pension forfeiture rules on conviction
This subsection ties the outcome of any subsequent criminal conviction to the already-established pension-forfeiture framework: a conviction for the specified felonies results in forfeiture of accrued retirement rights and benefits under the current law provisions. It does not alter the substantive scope of forfeiture or the legal mechanics (for example, retroactivity to earliest date of commission) contained in existing statutes.
State-mandated local program and reimbursement procedure
The bill contains language treating the new employer duties as a state-mandated local program and specifies that if the Commission on State Mandates determines the statute imposes reimbursable costs, reimbursement will follow the state’s established statutory procedures. That flag signals potential fiscal impact for local governments and preserves the administrative path to seek compensation for mandated expenses.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Taxpayers and local governments — reduced risk of indefinitely paying pensions or accrued benefits to individuals later convicted of felonies tied to their official duties, and improved ability to align administrative and criminal accountability.
- District attorneys and law enforcement — clearer channeling of employer-generated evidence and referrals when an employee retires mid‑investigation, which can aid criminal prosecutions.
- Public trust and oversight bodies — the law makes it harder for retirement to be used as a shield from scrutiny, reinforcing accountability expectations for public officers and employees.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local public employers (cities, counties, school districts, special districts) — must continue and document investigations after retirement, prepare referrals, preserve evidence, and potentially dedicate staff time to coordinate with prosecutors.
- Public retirement systems and pension administrators — will need to process forfeiture determinations and potential recovery actions when convictions occur, increasing administrative workload and legal reviews.
- Retired employees and defendants — face heightened exposure to criminal referral and the prospect of losing accrued retirement rights if convicted; they also may bear legal defense costs and administrative proceedings tied to forfeiture.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two competing imperatives: protecting public funds and accountability by ensuring investigations and criminal referrals continue after retirement, versus safeguarding procedural fairness and avoiding undue administrative or financial burdens on local governments and retirees; the statute leans toward accountability but leaves key procedural safeguards and fiscal allocation questions to later implementation.
AB 1067 solves a straightforward gap — it prevents retirement from automatically truncating an employer’s ability to develop a criminal referral — but it leaves multiple implementation questions unresolved. The statute does not define the threshold for when an investigation “indicates” a crime, nor does it set timelines or evidence standards for referrals.
That ambiguity shifts substantive judgment calls to local HR and legal staff and can produce inconsistent practices across jurisdictions. Another operational gap is that the bill authorizes employers to close their internal inquiry after referral; in practice, that may limit administrative remedies (discipline, decertification, internal sanctions) if prosecutors decline to charge.
A second tension concerns statutory remedies and timing. The bill does not authorize suspension or withholding of pension payments pending a criminal outcome, so employers and pension administrators may be forced to pay benefits until a conviction is final and then pursue recovery under existing forfeiture processes — a path that can be legally and logistically complex.
Finally, the bill creates new costs for local agencies (investigative and coordination burdens) while relying on the Commission on State Mandates process to determine reimburseability; that process can be adversarial and slow, so affected agencies may face near-term costs even if reimbursement is ultimately granted.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.