San Francisco Just Rewrote What You Can Ask About a Conviction
Most San Francisco employers think their hiring process is fine because they already follow California’s statewide ban-the-box rule.
That assumption is about to get expensive. Effective August 10, 2026, San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance adds categories of criminal history that a covered employer may never ask about, consider, or rely on again, no matter how the information surfaces. The new categories include convictions tied to abortion-related healthcare, gender-affirming care, and drag performance, along with juvenile-system matters, convictions older than seven years, non-felony and non-misdemeanor infractions, and convictions for conduct that is no longer a crime under California law. A standard background-check report will not filter these out for you.
The ordinance also tightens what happens after an offer is made. If a covered San Francisco employer is considering adverse action based on a conviction, it must confirm what the applicant or employee actually submitted, in writing, within 14 days. It must then pause, reconsider, and withdraw the adverse action entirely if the conviction does not directly relate to the job duties at issue. Civil penalties under the ordinance increased alongside these changes, and unlike the state’s protections, San Francisco’s ordinance reaches current employees, not only applicants.
For a small business without in-house HR, the practical risk is rarely bad intent. It is usually a hiring manager reusing an old template, an outdated background-check authorization form, or a gut reaction to a report that never should have reached a hiring decision in the first place.
If your business is covered by San Francisco’s ordinance and any hiring or termination decision touches a candidate’s or employee’s criminal history on or after August 10, the amendments govern that decision. A short policy review now is far less costly than an adverse-action dispute after the fact. Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a no-charge initial consultation. The facts determine what needs to be addressed — and how much of a conversation that takes.
This post shares general information based on common patterns I see in California workplaces. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and outcomes depend on specific facts — no lawyer can guarantee a result. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. AI may have been used to create this post. All content reviewed by a CA attorney before publication.