AB 2365 amends Education Code Section 44932 to broaden what counts as “egregious misconduct” for certificated school employees and adds Government Code Section 1032 to forbid any certificated person who was dismissed for that misconduct from holding any education‑related position with state agencies, the California State University, the University of California, local agencies, or local educational agencies. The ban is triggered by a dismissal for egregious misconduct as defined in the bill and contains definitions covering who and what entities are included.
This changes the remediation landscape for school personnel cases: it converts certain dismissal findings into a collateral, cross‑system employment bar rather than leaving rehiring decisions to individual employers or credentialing processes. The bill also includes legislative findings that it applies statewide (including charter cities) and a reimbursement clause if the Commission on State Mandates finds the measure imposes state‑mandated costs on local governments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill expands the catalogue of offenses that qualify as “egregious misconduct” in Education Code Section 44932 and creates a new Government Code ban that prevents any certificated person dismissed for egregious misconduct from being employed in any education‑related role by specified public entities across California.
Who It Affects
The prohibition directly affects certificated employees dismissed for the newly listed offenses, plus human resources, hiring officers, and legal counsel at K–12 districts, county offices of education, charter schools, community colleges, CSU, UC, and state agencies that employ educators. Credentialing and background‑check processes will also intersect with enforcement.
Why It Matters
AB 2365 centralizes a hiring consequence that previously depended on individual employers and credentialing outcomes, creating a uniform, permanent bar across public education employers — a significant shift in how dismissals for serious misconduct translate into future employment eligibility.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill does two linked things. First, it changes the Education Code’s definition of “egregious misconduct” used when dismissing certificated employees.
The amended language ties egregious misconduct exclusively to specific criminal offenses referenced in statute (including an expanded set of Penal Code sections listed in the bill). Second, it adds a new Government Code section that says: if a certificated person is dismissed for egregious misconduct, that person “shall not be employed” in any education‑related position by a broad set of public employers — state agencies, CSU, UC, local agencies, and local educational agencies.
Practically, the employment prohibition is categorical and unqualified in the text: it applies to anyone meeting the trigger (a dismissal for egregious misconduct) and covers a broad employment universe defined to include school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, special education local plan areas, community colleges, and the named state systems and agencies. The bill expressly clarifies that it does not affect eligibility for public office and includes a statutory finding that the measure addresses statewide, not municipal, concerns (so it applies in charter cities).The bill does not create a new licensing revocation process or an administrative registry; instead, it leverages the dismissal determination as the operative fact that disqualifies a person from future public education employment.
It also carries the usual legislative language about state‑mandated local costs: if the Commission on State Mandates finds the bill imposes reimbursable costs, reimbursement procedures under existing law apply. Because the statute ties the ban to dismissal findings and to existing offense lists, it becomes important to understand how dismissals, appeals, settlements, and credentialing actions interact with the new employment prohibition.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Education Code Section 44932 so that “egregious misconduct” is defined exclusively as immoral conduct that is the basis for certain enumerated offenses, explicitly referencing Penal Code sections including 236.1, 273a, 273ab, 273d, 273f, 273g, 278, 288.3, and sections 11165.2–11165.6.
Government Code Section 1032 creates a categorical prohibition: a certificated person dismissed for egregious misconduct “shall not be employed” in any education‑related position by state agencies, the California State University, the University of California, any local agency, or any local educational agency.
The bill’s employment ban is written without a statutory time limit or a specified remedial process — the disqualification is tied to the fact of dismissal for egregious misconduct, not to the passage of time or to credential status.
Section 1032 defines covered employers and certificated persons explicitly (cross‑referencing Education Code Section 44006 and Government Code definitions) and clarifies the measure does not affect eligibility to hold public office.
The bill contains a findings clause that it addresses a statewide concern (so it applies in charter cities) and a mandate‑reimbursement provision that triggers the state’s reimbursement process if the Commission on State Mandates finds the bill imposes costs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Expands and fixes the statutory definition of “egregious misconduct”
This amendment narrows the concept of egregious misconduct to immoral conduct that serves as the basis for certain enumerated criminal offenses. The text lists specific Penal Code sections (for example, 236.1 and a cluster of child‑abuse and sex‑offense provisions) so that only conduct tied to those offenses qualifies. For HR and legal teams, the practical effect is that dismissal for any of the listed offenses will be handled under the egregious‑misconduct procedures in Chapter 44932, with attendant hearing and suspension rules already in law.
Creates a statewide employment bar for certificated persons dismissed for egregious misconduct
This new section makes a dismissal finding for egregious misconduct the trigger for a cross‑system prohibition on public education employment. It lists covered employers (state agencies, CSU, UC, local agencies, and local educational agencies), supplies definitional cross‑references, and states that the prohibition does not affect eligibility for public office. Practically, §1032 converts a dismissal outcome into an employment disqualification enforced by individual employers during hiring and by internal HR processes.
Findings on statewide application and potential state‑mandated cost reimbursement
This small but important section contains two administrative results: a constitutional finding that the matter is statewide (so charter cities cannot opt out), and a standard reimbursement clause that sends any dispute over state‑mandated costs to the Commission on State Mandates procedures. Employers should expect that the state could be asked to reimburse local agencies if the commission finds the bill creates new, unfunded obligations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education 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
- K–12 students and families — by creating a uniform, cross‑system employment bar that reduces the chance a certificated person dismissed for specified serious offenses can be rehired by another public education employer.
- Local educational agencies and hiring officials — they gain a clear legal basis to deny employment to individuals with a dismissal for egregious misconduct without having to re‑litigate the prior factual finding.
- Public employers across systems (CSU, UC, state agencies) — the statute standardizes eligibility rules and reduces legal uncertainty when vetting candidates with prior dismissals.
Who Bears the Cost
- Certificated employees dismissed for egregious misconduct — they face a broad, potentially permanent bar to public education employment that extends beyond the district that dismissed them.
- Local educational agencies, county offices of education, and state employers — they will bear HR and legal costs to screen, document, and enforce the prohibition and may face litigation over its application, burdening already stretched personnel offices.
- School districts and charter schools — they must integrate the ban into hiring and rehire processes, which may require additional record‑keeping, cross‑agency checks, and coordination with legal counsel and credentialing entities.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between strengthening student safety by imposing a uniform, cross‑system employment ban for those dismissed for specified serious offenses and protecting individual procedural fairness and employment rehabilitation: AB 2365 makes dismissal findings translate into a broad, long‑lasting exclusion from public education jobs, but it leaves open questions about appeal reversals, negotiated departures, enforcement mechanics, and whether a categorical ban is an appropriately calibrated consequence.
The bill raises several implementation and legal questions that the text does not resolve. First, the statute ties the employment ban to a dismissal finding for egregious misconduct but does not define how alternate outcomes interact with the ban: does a negotiated resignation, a settlement, or an administrative separation without a formal dismissal trigger the prohibition?
Second, the text does not create an enforcement mechanism, centralized registry, or notification duty: enforcement appears to rely on individual employers to identify prior dismissals, so practical effectiveness will depend on record availability and interagency information sharing. Third, the bill is silent on cases where a dismissal is later reversed on appeal or where criminal charges are dismissed; the statute contains no explicit remedial path for someone cleared after a dismissal finding.
From a compliance perspective, HR offices will need operational guidance: what documentation proves a triggering dismissal, how to verify out‑of‑state dismissals or prior employment in private schools, and how to handle ambiguous records. The bill also invites legal challenge territory: litigants could argue the ban is punitive beyond the dismissal sanction, that it conflicts with credentialing decisions, or that it raises due process concerns when the prohibition persists after reversal of a dismissal.
Finally, the reimbursement clause means local budgets could be affected, but only if the Commission on State Mandates determines the measure creates reimbursable costs — a determination that is itself uncertain and procedural.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.