AB2095 reshapes employer treatment of conviction history in hiring by moving most consideration of criminal records to after a conditional job offer and by building a prescriptive notice-and-review process around any decision to deny employment for conviction history. The bill also forbids some uses of conviction-related information (for example, sealed or expunged convictions and certain arrests) and stops employers from passing the cost of background checks to applicants.
This measure matters for HR teams, recruiters, and compliance officers because it forces changes to application forms and recruiting timelines, creates a new written-record requirement (including specific notice content), and raises the risk of administrative complaints and litigation if employers fail to follow the prescribed process or meet the response deadlines.
At a Glance
What It Does
AB2095 makes it unlawful for covered employers to seek an applicant’s conviction history or begin a background check before extending a conditional job offer, with narrow exceptions. When an employer proposes to deny based on conviction history, the bill requires a written individualized assessment, a prescribed preliminary notice with a copy of the report, an applicant response window, and a fresh assessment before a final denial.
Who It Affects
Employers in California with five or more employees, HR and talent-acquisition teams, background-check vendors, and legally regulated employers (for whom the bill creates a separate exception-and-notice regime). It also affects applicants with conviction histories, including people with sealed or expunged records and those in diversion programs.
Why It Matters
The bill standardizes a ‘ban-the-box’-style process with detailed procedural safeguards, shifting recruiting timelines and documentation burdens onto employers while aiming to reduce employment barriers for people with criminal records. It also creates explicit conflicts and interactions with existing state and federal legal requirements that employers must track.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB2095 restructures when and how employers may use conviction information. Under the bill, employers generally may not ask about or obtain an applicant’s conviction history before making a written conditional job offer.
The bill also forbids charging applicants to cover the cost of conviction-history background checks and prohibits requiring applicants to self-disclose convictions or to produce documentary proof of rehabilitation at any stage. Certain categories of conviction-related information — arrests not resulting in conviction (with narrowly enumerated exceptions), referrals to diversion programs, and convictions that are sealed, dismissed, pardoned, or statutorily eradicated — are off-limits for hiring decisions and for distribution during background checks.
If an employer intends to deny a position because of conviction history, AB2095 requires the employer to perform and reduce to writing an individualized assessment that links the specific conviction to the specific duties of the job. The assessment must consider the nature and gravity of the offense, the time since the offense and sentence completion, and the nature of the job duties.
The bill creates a rebuttable presumption that the conviction is not sufficiently related to justify denial if the applicant completed the sentence (completion does not require end of parole/probation) or if the applicant already holds a required credential or license.Before rendering a final denial, the employer must deliver a preliminary written notice listing the disqualifying conviction(s), provide a copy of any conviction-history report, explain the applicant’s right to respond and the deadline for doing so, and include the written individualized-assessment results. The applicant gets at least five business days to respond; the bill further provides an additional response period if the applicant timely disputes the accuracy of the report and is taking steps to obtain supporting evidence.
The employer must consider any materials submitted and perform a new individualized assessment before issuing a final denial, which must include written reasons, a copy of the updated assessment, any internal challenge procedure, and the right to file a department complaint.AB2095 contains exceptions: positions where state or federal law requires a background check (or bars hiring based on conviction), criminal-justice agencies, farm labor contractor roles, and positions covered by other statutory mandates. For roles covered by law, employers may still inquire or run checks pre-offer only if they simultaneously provide a written notice that identifies the legal basis for the exception; when adverse action is legally mandated, the employer need not perform the individualized assessment but must cite the specific law or regulation requiring the action.
The bill also includes a severability clause and makes its remedies cumulative with other state and local rights.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Applies to employers with five or more employees and makes pre-offer questions or background checks about conviction history unlawful except for narrow exceptions tied to law or certain agencies.
Requires written individualized assessments tying a specific conviction to specific job duties and mandates the employer consider offense gravity, time since offense/sentence completion, and the job’s duties.
Creates a preliminary-notice process: employers must provide the disqualifying conviction(s), a copy of the conviction-history report, the individualized-assessment results, and a description of the applicant's right and deadline to respond.
Gives applicants at least five business days to respond to a preliminary denial and provides an additional response window if the applicant disputes report accuracy and is taking steps to obtain evidence (the bill text contains ambiguous language about this supplemental period).
Bars employers from charging applicants for conviction-history checks, forbids considering sealed/dismissed/expunged convictions or certain arrests and diversion records, and permits a temporary paid suspension while an employer complies with the statute's procedures.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition on pre-offer conviction questions and certain uses
This subdivision sets the core behavioral prohibitions: employers may not include conviction-history questions on applications before a conditional offer, request consent for or begin conviction checks pre-offer, require applicants to pay for checks, or demand self-disclosure or documents about convictions or rehabilitation. It also forbids taking adverse action based solely or partly on conviction history before the post-offer process. Practically, HR teams must remove conviction-history items from application forms and recruiters must delay background-check vendor engagement until after a conditional offer, except where a statutory exception applies.
Limits on the content and distribution of conviction information
This subsection specifies categories of information employers cannot seek, disseminate, or rely on during conviction-history checks: arrests not followed by conviction (except in narrow health-facility or specified circumstances), participation in pretrial/posttrial diversion, and convictions that are sealed, dismissed, expunged, pardoned, or otherwise legally eradicated. For compliance officers, this means that background-check reports and vendor integrations must be filtered to exclude these categories or flagged so employers do not use them for adverse decisions.
Individualized assessment and decision process
When an employer intends to disqualify an applicant based on conviction history, this section requires a written individualized assessment that ties the conviction to specific job duties and considers three enumerated factors (offense gravity, time since offense/sentence completion, and job duties). The employer must document the assessment and, if making a preliminary disqualifying determination, send a prescribed notice (including the report copy and assessment) and allow a response period before a final decision. The subsection also creates a rebuttable presumption favoring the applicant if the sentence is completed or the applicant holds a required credential.
Preliminary notice, applicant response rights, and final notice
These clauses spell out what must be in the preliminary notice (identification of disqualifying convictions, report copy, response rights, and assessment results) and require at least five business days for the applicant to reply. If the applicant disputes the report's accuracy and is pursuing evidence, the statute provides an additional window (the text contains a drafting anomaly on the length). The employer must consider submitted evidence, redo the individualized assessment, and if denying, provide written final notice including updated reasons, the assessment, internal challenge procedures, and the right to file with the department.
Exceptions and how to use them
Subdivision (d) lists exceptions: positions where law requires a background check or limits hiring based on convictions, criminal-justice agencies, farm labor contractors, and similar statutory requirements. Importantly, when a legal exception allows pre-offer inquiries, the employer must simultaneously give a written notice naming the law or regulation that creates the exception. If an adverse action is legally mandated, the individualized-assessment step is not required; instead, the employer must cite the governing statute or regulation in its notice to the applicant.
Remedies are cumulative
This brief clause clarifies that protections under the section add to — and do not replace — any other state or local remedies or ordinances governing employer consideration of arrest and conviction records. Compliance teams should therefore track not just AB2095's requirements but also existing local rules that may be more restrictive.
Definitions and severability
The bill defines key terms — applicant, conditional job offer, conviction, and conviction history — largely by reference to existing Labor Code definitions, and includes specific carve-outs for certain arrest contexts. It ends with a severability clause to preserve remaining provisions if one part is invalidated. These textual anchors affect how courts will interpret ambiguous provisions and how employers should map existing policies to the new statutory language.
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
- Applicants with conviction histories — The bill reduces early-stage screening based on criminal records and gives applicants a structured opportunity to contest reports or present rehabilitation evidence before a final hiring decision.
- People with sealed, expunged, or pardoned convictions — AB2095 explicitly bars employers from using these records in hiring, strengthening protections that already exist in some contexts.
- Applicants who hold required licenses or who have completed sentences — The statute creates a rebuttable presumption favoring these applicants, improving their odds where prior practices treated conviction status as dispositive.
- Civil-rights and reentry advocates — The law builds enforceable process protections that advocates can use to challenge blanket exclusions and to push employers toward individualized decision-making.
Who Bears the Cost
- California employers with five or more employees — They must revise applications, train HR staff, delay background-check runs to post-offer, document individualized assessments in writing, and maintain records to defend potential claims.
- Background-check vendors and screening services — The ban on charging applicants and the limitations on reportable content will force vendors to reconfigure products, produce sanitized reports, and potentially absorb integration or filtering costs.
- Small HR teams and in-house recruiters — The procedural steps (written assessments, notification templates, tracking response windows, and re-assessments) add administrative work and slow hiring timelines, particularly for high-volume roles.
- Compliance departments and legal counsel — Increased litigation and administrative-complaint risk, plus the need to map exceptions to specific statutes or SRO rules, will raise advisory and monitoring costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between promoting fair access to employment for people with criminal histories and preserving employers’ ability to assess workplace safety and legal compliance: the bill favors a process that protects applicants and requires employers to document case-by-case risk, but it does so by imposing delays, recordkeeping obligations, and legal exposure that some employers will argue impede efficient hiring and lawful risk management.
AB2095 aims for a clear, fair process, but it introduces implementation friction and some drafting gaps that will matter in practice. The requirement to create a written individualized assessment and to include it in preliminary and final notices creates a paper trail that helps applicants but also increases exposure to legal challenge: a perfunctory or formulaic assessment could itself become the basis for litigation.
The prohibition on charging applicants for background checks shifts costs to employers or vendors and may change which components of screening (criminal checks versus education or credential verification) are prioritized. The bill also restricts use of certain records (sealed convictions, diversion, certain arrests), which will require vendors and HR systems to filter or redact reports — a technical and contractual change.
The statute's exception regime raises enforcement complexity. Employers may still conduct pre-offer checks when a specific law requires it, but must provide a contemporaneous written notice naming the laws that justify the exception; that creates a new compliance task (identify and cite the exact statute, regulation, or SRO rule) and a potential trap if an employer cites the wrong authority.
The bill contains a drafting irregularity in the applicant-response window language (it references both "five" and "10" additional business days), which creates ambiguity about how long employers must wait and could be litigated or require agency guidance. Finally, the bill does not specify administrative penalties or a damages formula; remedies are cumulative with other laws, but enforcement practice and damage calculations will depend on later agency rules or case law.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.