The California Court of Appeal recently upheld a lower court's ruling against John "Jack" McInerney, who claimed he faced discrimination and retaliation from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) due to his criminal history. McInerney's case, filed under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), raised significant questions about employment practices concerning individuals with prior convictions. This ruling has implications for how universities and employers assess criminal records when hiring.
McInerney, who is now 67 years old, had a history of drug-related convictions dating back to 2005. He applied for a job as an office assistant at UCLA in September 2021 and received a conditional job offer. However, his employment was contingent upon a successful background check, which ultimately revealed his criminal history. The university's decision to rescind the job offer led McInerney to file a lawsuit against UCLA, alleging discrimination and retaliation.
The dispute began when McInerney applied for the position at UCLA's Graduate Student Resource Center (GSRC). After an interview and a conditional offer, he was subjected to a background check, which revealed multiple felony convictions. UCLA's interim director, Andrew McClure, informed McInerney that he could not be placed on the work schedule until the background check was complete. Following this, McInerney sent several aggressive emails to UCLA staff, expressing his frustration and threatening legal action.
In his lawsuit, McInerney claimed that UCLA's actions constituted discrimination under the Fair Chance Act (FCA), which restricts how employers can use criminal history in hiring decisions. He argued that the university failed to provide him with adequate time to respond to the background check findings, specifically the five business days mandated by the FCA. The case was heard in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where the trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of UCLA on several claims, including retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation.
During the trial, the jury found that UCLA's decision to deny McInerney employment was not solely based on his criminal history. The court ruled that while UCLA failed to provide the full five business days for McInerney to respond to the background check findings, this did not result in harm that would have changed the outcome of his employment status. The jury concluded that McInerney's aggressive communications with UCLA staff also played a significant role in the decision not to hire him.
The court's ruling stated, "The process required under the governing statute and regulations in order to conduct and complete an 'individual assessment' was properly and lawfully followed by [UCLA] in this case in every respect except for its failure to provide the required full five days of response time." However, the court also noted that McInerney needed to prove that this error directly caused him harm, which the jury found he could not.
As a result of this ruling, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment against McInerney, dismissing his claims of retaliation and failure to prevent retaliation. The court determined that McInerney did not engage in protected activity under FEHA, as his communications did not constitute legitimate complaints about unlawful employment practices. The court emphasized that merely expressing frustration over the background check process did not meet the legal standard for protected activity.
This ruling has significant implications for individuals with criminal histories seeking employment, particularly in educational institutions. It underscores the importance of how employers conduct background checks and assess candidates with previous convictions. Employers are reminded to follow legal requirements carefully while also considering the context of an applicant's past offenses.
Moving forward, the ruling may influence how universities and other employers approach hiring practices concerning individuals with criminal records. It highlights the need for clear communication and adherence to legal standards when evaluating applicants. McInerney's case serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding employment discrimination laws and the challenges faced by those with criminal histories seeking to reintegrate into the workforce.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether McInerney plans to appeal the decision. However, the outcome of this case may resonate in future litigation involving similar claims under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.