This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Perspective

Jan. 19, 2017

AB 1289: Rules for ride-share services

As of Jan. 1, transportation network companies such as Uber that do business in California will have to conduct federal and state criminal background checks on their drivers. By Gina M. Roccanova

Gina M. Roccanova

Principal, Jackson Lewis PC

labor & employment

Phone: (510) 808-2010

Fax: (510) 444-1108

Email: groccanova@meyersnave.com

Univ of Michigan Law School

Gina has more than 20 years of experience in both the public and private sectors and brings a practical, problem-solving orientation to her work in negotiations, counseling, investigations, litigation, arbitration, and training.

By Gina M. Roccanova

As of Jan. 1, transportation network companies (TNCs) such as Uber, Lyft and Wingz that do business in California will have to conduct federal and state criminal background checks on their drivers, regardless of whether they work as independent contractors or employees. Assembly Bill 1289 makes violation of the new background check requirements a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 to $5,000 fine and up to three months in jail.

The bill amends the Public Utilities Code to prohibit TNCs from employing or contracting with drivers who are listed on the Department of Justice sex offender registry or who have ever been convicted of a violent felony or terrorism-related crime. The prohibition also extends to drivers who have been convicted of domestic violence, misdemeanor assault or battery, driving under the influence, receiving or giving bribes, extortion, grand theft, larceny, fraud, obtaining property by impersonation, or voter intimidation within the last seven years.

This legislation is a response to a specific set of problems in a particular industry - the rapid growth of TNCs, their unconventional business model, some highly publicized assaults by drivers, and concerns about fairness from taxicab operators and the agencies that regulate them. It is also a departure from other recent legislative enactments in the areas of pre-employment screening:

* AB 1843, signed by the governor at the same time as AB 1289, prohibits employers from requesting or using any information about juvenile arrests, detention, or adjudication from applicants and prohibits the use of such information to make decisions about "any condition of employment."

* Labor Code 2814, which became effective just this year, limits the use of the E-verify system before an offer of employment is made.

* Labor Code 1024.5, enacted five years ago, dramatically narrowed the circumstances under which California employers may use consumer credit reports in employment decisions.

* SB 530, a 2013 enactment that amended Labor Code 432.7, prohibits employers from seeking or using information about criminal convictions that were expunged, sealed, or judicially dismissed, except in narrow circumstances.

* Labor Code 432.9, which became effective in 2014, required major changes to the way public entities screen applicants. That statute, which announces a clear public policy of "reducing barriers to employment" for people who have been convicted of crimes, prohibits public entities from requesting any criminal history information until it determines whether an applicant meets the minimum qualifications for the job.

All of these statutes recognize the necessity of more rigorous background checks for employees in certain positions of trust, such as law enforcement, people who work with vulnerable populations, and certain health care employees. But the overall trend has been, and continues to be, toward restricting the use of pre-employment screening. By adding another narrowly defined group to the exceptions to these laws, the California Legislature is not likely signaling a wholesale change of direction, but is rather addressing a particular circumstance in a limited way.

#304183

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com