Registered Sex Offender Fired for "Policy Violation" - Can I Sue?

[hearandwear]

I was recently fired from a Home Depot store in California after 11 months as a cashier. It was brought to the management's attention that I am a registered sex offender and convicted felon. They did not ask if I had a felony conviction on the application and the question was never asked at the interview. I was even hired while living at a halfway house and still technically under Federal custody! I passed the background check that the company did on me. After nearly 11 months, I was called to the office and asked if I had a criminal conviction. I provided documents and they sent to the corporate headquarters in Atlanta. They called me about a week later to discuss details about the conviction and I was fired about a week after that.

The reason for termination was listed as "Policy Violation". I asked what policy I had violated and they said the Background Checks policy. I do not see why I should be punished for something that the company failed to do. If they had asked me, I would have told them! At no point did they state that I was fired for being a convicted felon or because I was registered, so they were careful to make it seem like they were not discriminating against me. I know it's a long-shot but I want to know if I have a case for wrongful termination or if this falls under California's "At Will" employment?

 

[Just Blue]

I was recently fired from a Home Depot store in California after 11 months as a cashier. It was brought to the management's attention that I am a registered sex offender and convicted felon. They did not ask if I had a felony conviction on the application and the question was never asked at the interview. I was even hired while living at a halfway house and still technically under Federal custody! I passed the background check that the company did on me. After nearly 11 months, I was called to the office and asked if I had a criminal conviction. I provided documents and they sent to the corporate headquarters in Atlanta. They called me about a week later to discuss details about the conviction and I was fired about a week after that.

The reason for termination was listed as "Policy Violation". I asked what policy I had violated and they said the Background Checks policy. I do not see why I should be punished for something that the company failed to do. If they had asked me, I would have told them! At no point did they state that I was fired for being a convicted felon or because I was registered, so they were careful to make it seem like they were not discriminating against me. I know it's a long-shot but I want to know if I have a case for wrongful termination or if this falls under California's "At Will" employment?

As far as I know being a rapist is not a protected class.

PX Hx...

 

[CTU]

As far as I know being a rapist is not a protected class.

PX Hx...

Where does he mention rape?

(Seriously asking - did he delete?)

 

[Just Blue]

Where does he mention rape?

(Seriously asking - did he delete?)

No he did not delete.

I "assumed" based on his post. He is a sex offender and a felon ...I made an assumption.

I will say that being a sex offender is not a protected class...

 

[cbg]

So far I have been unable to find any CA law that would prohibit this termination.

 

[Chyvan]

if I have a case

You've got a case to get unemployment benefits.

 

[CdwJava]

California law also restricts the ability of an employer to use criminal history records or even Megan's Law to deny employment or terminate employees. You MIGHT want to speak with an attorney who specializes in this area of law to see if it might be worth your time and money to pursue a case against them.

 

[FlyingRon]

California law also restricts the ability of an employer to use criminal history records or even Megan's Law to deny employment or terminate employees. You MIGHT want to speak with an attorney who specializes in this area of law to see if it might be worth your time and money to pursue a case against them.

There are additional California restrictions over the Federal (mostly EEOC) rules, but I can't see how any of the California ones apply provided that this was an actual conviction (rather than just an arrest) that was not expunged or pardoned and within the previous seven years of hiring.

 

[CdwJava]

CA labor laws changed a few years back to try and make it harder to terminate someone based solely on their criminal record unless they can articulate a credible risk. So, hiring a thief to work in a field where you are handling cash, a convicted child molester as a janitor in a daycare, etc.

This has been a hot button issue in CA for a few years, and employers have been weighing these changes and how to interpret them for a while. When caught before they are hired, it's pretty easy to claim that they weren't hire for other reasons. Terminating him after he had been on the job for several months, and doing so solely because of his status as a sex offender and nothing else, could very well put the employer at risk ... again, depending on the facts.

In fact, there's a bill in the state legislature right now that will make it even harder to let someone go or not hire them if they have a record. I suspect it will pass because this IS CA after all, and we love criminals out here.

I don't have all the laws and the exceptions accessible and have no intention of doing all the research for the OP, hence my suggestion he consult an employment attorney. It may be that none are applicable here. That's why all the facts might need to be evaluated.

AND, I am more than willing to admit that I may be mashing federal and state regs into the maelstrom of confusion, and the web of laws in CA that limit questions that can be asked by employees and how they might act upon it. My experience is in the area of public employment, so I don't have as much experience in the private sector. However, terminating someone after several months solely for his being a convicted sex offender seems to me that it may well be a problem.

 

[FlyingRon]

CA labor laws changed a few years back to try and make it harder to terminate someone based solely on their criminal record unless they can articulate a credible risk. So, hiring a thief to work in a field where you are handling cash, a convicted child molester as a janitor in a daycare, etc.

Again, I don't see anything in the CURRENTLY ENACTED law that applies here. The thing you may be referring to is that the public sector (government) is barred from asking or considering convictions PRIOR to evaluating the employee on his other merits. This doesn't apply to private sector businesses like the Home Depot. They are barred from asking about simple arrests or any thing that went through a formal dismisal or otherwise expunged, nor can they ask about simple marijauana possession. Again all these do not apply the poster's case.

The only thing about accessing public databases is that if it goes beyond someone covered by the state and federal laws on background check companies (FCRA and the like), it is incumbent on the employer to verify the accuracy of information before using it to make an adverse decision.

 

[CdwJava]

All the same, there have been cases here where people who have been fired solely for their criminal history that came out later. The OP would be best served by consulting an attorney to evaluate his case. This state is poised to view convicted criminals attempting to obtain and maintain gainful employment with some sympathy.