AB 2064 amends the Unruh Civil Rights Act to add “formerly incarcerated status” to the list of protected characteristics and provides a statutory definition: an individual who has completed a sentence in any correctional or juvenile facility and is released. The amendment explicitly excludes people who are currently incarcerated.
The bill also preserves existing limits and carve-outs in the statute: it does not create rights that are lawfully conditioned or limited, it does not require physical modifications beyond other legal obligations, and it preserves federal immigration verification requirements. For practitioners, the change expands the classes protected from discrimination in business establishments and layers a new compliance consideration onto client-facing entities and enforcement counsel alike.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill inserts “formerly incarcerated status” into the Unruh Act’s enumerated protected characteristics and defines the term as completion of a sentence in a correctional or juvenile facility followed by release. It clarifies that current incarceration is not covered.
Who It Affects
Entities that fall under the Unruh Act’s reach — business establishments that provide goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations — will need to evaluate policies that treat people differently because of prior incarceration. Reentry organizations, civil-rights litigators, and formerly incarcerated individuals are directly implicated.
Why It Matters
This change brings prior incarceration into the core California anti-discrimination statute governing private businesses, potentially enabling new causes of action and compliance obligations where criminal-history status has been a basis for exclusion or unequal treatment.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 2064 changes California’s basic anti-discrimination law by adding “formerly incarcerated status” to the list of protected characteristics in the Unruh Civil Rights Act. That means a person who has completed a sentence in a correctional or juvenile facility and has been released is explicitly protected from discriminatory treatment by business establishments offering accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, or services.
The bill is careful to limit the new protection in several ways. It expressly states that it will not create any rights that are already conditioned or limited by other laws, and it will not force construction or structural changes beyond what other statutes already require.
It also retains a provision equating violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act with violations of the Unruh Act, preserves the ability to verify immigration status when federal law requires it, and does not expand language-provision obligations beyond what existing law requires.Practically, the text extends the Unruh framework — including its coverage of perceptions, associations, and combinations of protected traits — to formerly incarcerated status. Businesses will need to reassess policies and training that treat formerly incarcerated people differently (for example, in access to services or in-frontline decision-making).
The statute’s definition is narrowly tied to completion of a sentence, but the bill leaves open interpretive questions about related concepts such as parole, probation, diversion programs, or arrests that did not result in incarceration.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts “formerly incarcerated status” into the Unruh Act’s enumerated protected characteristics, making it an explicit basis for unlawful discrimination by business establishments.
It defines “formerly incarcerated status” as an individual who has completed a sentence in any correctional or juvenile facility and has been released, and it specifically excludes current incarceration.
The protection covers perceptions and associations — the statute applies if a person is perceived to have, associated with, or combines formerly incarcerated status with other protected characteristics.
AB 2064 preserves existing limitations: it does not create rights that are conditioned or limited by other laws and does not require construction or physical modifications beyond other statutory requirements.
The bill keeps carve-outs for federal immigration verification (where required by federal law) and equates ADA violations with violations of this section of the Unruh Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds 'formerly incarcerated status' to the list of protected characteristics
This clause modifies the core Unruh protection language to include formerly incarcerated status alongside race, sex, disability, and other characteristics. Mechanically, the change brings any disparate treatment by business establishments against people who have served sentences within the same statutory prohibition that already covers other enumerated characteristics. Compliance implications are immediate for entities evaluating access, services, and consumer-facing eligibility rules.
Defines 'formerly incarcerated status' and excludes current incarceration
The bill provides a definition: the condition of completing a sentence in any correctional or juvenile facility and being released. The explicit exclusion of current incarceration narrows the class to those who are out of custody, but the statutory text does not elaborate on parole, probation, diversion, or community supervision — leaving implementation questions for courts and regulators about the status of people under supervisory conditions.
Coverage of perception, association, and combined characteristics
AB 2064 applies the Unruh Act’s existing language that bars discrimination based on a person’s perceived characteristics or association with someone who has a protected trait, and it treats combinations of characteristics as protected. That means actions taken because someone is perceived to have a criminal past, or because they are associated with someone who does, are within the statute’s scope — a doctrinal point that expands how businesses must think about indirect or associative treatment.
No new construction or physical-modification obligation
The bill preserves the long-standing limitation that the Unruh Act will not be read to require construction, alteration, repair, or modification beyond what other law already requires, and it preserves the State Architect’s existing authority. For regulated facilities and businesses, this prevents the amendment from being interpreted as imposing new accessibility or physical infrastructure mandates tied to the newly added protected status.
Interplay with ADA, immigration verification, and language obligations
The bill retains an explicit rule that violations of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act also constitute violations of this section of the Unruh Act, and it preserves a carve-out allowing immigration-status verification and discrimination based on verified immigration status where federal law requires it. It also clarifies that the statute does not expand existing obligations to provide services in languages other than English. Those provisions define boundaries on enforcement and help reconcile the new protection with preexisting federal and state requirements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Civil Rights across all five countries.
Explore Civil Rights 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
- People who have completed a jail or prison sentence: They gain explicit statutory protection under the Unruh Act against unequal treatment by businesses that provide goods, services, facilities, privileges, or accommodations.
- Reentry and civil-rights organizations: The change strengthens advocacy and enforcement leverage when challenging discriminatory exclusion from business services, partnerships, or consumer-facing opportunities.
- Civil-rights litigators and private plaintiffs: Attorneys representing formerly incarcerated clients acquire a clear statutory hook for claims under the Unruh Act, potentially broadening the range of actionable conduct in consumer and services contexts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Business establishments (retailers, restaurants, hotels, private service providers): They will need to review and possibly revise policies, staff training, and front-line screening practices to avoid discriminatory treatment tied to prior incarceration.
- Regulated entities relying on background checks: Organizations that use criminal-history screening for eligibility or safety may face more legal challenges and will need to justify disparate treatment under other legal exceptions.
- Courts and enforcement agencies: Expanding the protected classes is likely to increase the volume and complexity of claims, shifting administrative and judicial resources toward interpreting the new definition and its limits.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the policy goal of preventing post‑custody exclusion and stigma against the legitimate need for businesses and regulators to rely on criminal-history information for safety, licensing, and legal compliance; resolving that tension requires courts and agencies to draw fine lines the statutory text currently leaves open.
AB 2064 is surgically narrow in its change — it inserts a new protected characteristic and supplies a definition — but it leaves several consequential implementation questions unresolved. The statutory definition ties protection to completion of a sentence and release, yet says nothing about parole, probation, or supervised release; courts will have to decide whether those under supervision count as "formerly" incarcerated.
The bill likewise does not address whether diversion programs, convictions without incarceration, or arrests without conviction fall within the protection, which creates immediate ambiguity for employers and service providers using criminal-history information.
The statute preserves important carve-outs (federal immigration verification, existing construction obligations, and ADA parity), but those same carve-outs create a tension in practice. Employers and licensing bodies that rely on statutory or regulatory disqualifications linked to criminal history may claim their actions are "conditioned or limited by law," potentially narrowing the bill’s practical reach.
Conversely, businesses that routinely exclude applicants or customers on the basis of prior convictions will face new exposure and a probable wave of litigation to clarify the lines between legitimate, law-driven exclusions and unlawful discrimination.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.