Wage & Hour
A.S. v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., 2026): Employers Can’t Use Expunged Misdemeanors Absent a Specific Law
Updated
In A.S. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the Los Angeles Unified School District violated Labor Code section 432.7 when it rejected two job applicants based on their expunged misdemeanor convictions. The court concluded that neither statutory exception the District invoked applied on these facts, and it affirmed both judgments against the District.
Background
Two people applied for work with the District. A.S. sought a part-time program worker job with an after school program, and E.M. applied to be a legal secretary in the District’s office of general counsel.
A.S. had a misdemeanor battery conviction, and E.M. had a misdemeanor grand theft conviction. Both had their convictions expunged under Penal Code section 1203.4. The District rejected both applicants because of those expunged convictions, taking the position that the expungements did not matter to its screening of applicants with criminal records.
The applicants sued separately. Different Los Angeles County Superior Court judges granted summary judgment against the District, each ruling that the District had misread the statute and improperly relied on the expunged misdemeanors. The parties consolidated the two cases for one appeal.
What the Court Held on the Nondisclosure Statute
Reviewing the statutory question independently, the court started with the basic prohibition in Labor Code section 432.7, subdivision (a)(1). That provision bars an employer from asking applicants to disclose, or from utilizing, records of convictions that have been judicially dismissed—which includes expunged convictions.
The court found that this prohibition covered the District’s conduct. The District was an employer, it asked about the expunged misdemeanors, and it used that information to reject the applicants. The court rejected the District’s argument that the word “employer” carried a narrower meaning in the statute’s second sentence than in its first.
Under Labor Code section 432.7, an employer may not use an applicant’s expunged conviction unless it can point to a law targeting that particular conviction. General duties to screen applicants and run background checks do not, by themselves, authorize use of an unrelated expunged misdemeanor.
Why the Statutory Exceptions Did Not Apply
The District relied on two exceptions. The first, in section 432.7, subdivision (m), lets an employer ask about a “particular conviction” when a law requires the employer to obtain information about, or prohibits it from hiring an applicant with, that specific conviction. The court agreed the District was subject to such duties generally but found no law identifying misdemeanor battery or misdemeanor grand theft as relevant. It also noted that this exception no longer permits an employer to “utilize” the information.
The second exception, in section 432.7, subdivision (n), lets an employer required to run background checks and to restrict employment based on criminal history comply with those requirements. The court held that running a check permits use only to the extent of specific employment restrictions set by law. Because no law required the District to restrict employment for these particular misdemeanors, the exception did not immunize its actions.
The court added that the legislative history of the 2013 and 2018 amendments supported this reading, reflecting concern that employers were rejecting applicants over unrelated, expunged convictions. It affirmed the orders and awarded costs to the applicants.
What This Means for You
This decision clarifies that Labor Code section 432.7 bars an employer from using an applicant’s expunged conviction unless a specific law targets that particular conviction. It confirms that general legal duties to screen applicants or conduct background checks do not authorize rejecting an applicant over an unrelated, expunged misdemeanor. The case concerns hiring decisions that turn on criminal-history records.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.