San Francisco's amended Fair Chance Ordinance took effect in August 2026, expanding the categories of criminal record information employers are prohibited from asking about on job applications and in interviews, and adding new procedural steps before an employer can run a background check or make an adverse hiring decision. The ordinance updates a ban-the-box framework that has been on the books in the city since 2014, and the August amendments are the most significant expansion since the original law passed. Job applicants in San Francisco now have stronger procedural protections, and the penalties for noncompliant employers have been clarified.
What the ordinance already covered
San Francisco's original Fair Chance Ordinance, in force since 2014, prohibited most private employers from asking about an applicant's criminal history on the initial job application. Employers could ask about convictions and pending charges later in the process, after a conditional offer had been extended, and they were required to give the applicant a written notice and a chance to respond before any adverse action was taken. The ordinance applied to most employers with five or more employees doing business in the city.
For applicants with records, the practical effect was that they no longer had to disclose a conviction on the first screen. The catch was that the ordinance still allowed employers to ask about a wide range of conviction types after the offer stage, including older convictions and convictions that had been dismissed or expunged. California's own record-clearing expansions made the gap increasingly visible to employers and applicants.
What changed in August 2026
The August amendments expand the categories of conviction-related information an employer cannot ask about, even after a conditional offer. Convictions that are more than seven years old — measured from the date of disposition — are now off-limits unless the position falls within a narrow list of exemptions, such as certain roles working with vulnerable populations. Diversion program outcomes that resulted in dismissal are now treated the same as a dismissal for record-clearing purposes, which means employers cannot ask about them at any stage.
The amendments also tighten the procedural sequence. An employer that intends to make an adverse decision based on a background check must now provide the applicant with a copy of the report, a written description of the specific conviction relied upon, and a clear opportunity to respond, before the conditional offer can be rescinded. The response window has been lengthened, and the documentation requirements are stricter than before. Employers that fail to follow the sequence face enhanced penalties.
How this differs from state and federal rules
California's statewide ban-the-box rules already restrict private employer use of criminal history, but the San Francisco ordinance is broader in several respects. The seven-year-old cutoff is a San Francisco-specific number, and the diversion-program clarification is a San Francisco-specific addition. The procedural sequence in San Francisco is also more detailed, with explicit timing requirements for the post-offer notice.
The ordinance also interacts with California's Clean Slate record-sealing laws. A conviction sealed under California law is generally not supposed to appear on a typical background check, but the Fair Chance Ordinance gives applicants an explicit path to challenge any sealed record that does surface, and to point the employer to the underlying sealing order.
What applicants in San Francisco should know
For applicants with a conviction history, the immediate practical effect is that the application stage is now more straightforward — there is no obligation to disclose convictions, including older ones, until the employer has extended a conditional offer. If an employer asks about a conviction that is more than seven years old, or about a diversion program that ended in dismissal, that question is now a violation of the ordinance. The city has signaled that applicants who experience repeated violations can file a complaint with the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement.
If an applicant does receive an adverse-action letter after a background check, the letter has to include a copy of the report and a description of the specific record relied upon. The applicant then has a defined window — measured in business days — to respond, to point out errors in the report, or to argue that the conviction is not relevant to the position. The employer is required to consider the response before finalizing the adverse decision.
What employers and staffing agencies need to update
For employers and staffing agencies operating in San Francisco, the August amendments have triggered compliance updates to intake forms, background-check vendor configurations, and adverse-action procedures. Several employment-law firms have published implementation guidance since the law took effect, and the city has posted updated model notices on the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement website. The general sequence — offer, background check, individual assessment, written notice, response window, written final decision — is more rigid than before, and any step skipped can invalidate an adverse decision.
The cleanest path for an applicant is still to ask, at the application stage, whether the position is one of the exempt roles, and to keep a copy of any written communication that follows. If a question about a sealed or older conviction comes up later in the process, the ordinance gives the applicant an explicit basis to decline and to flag the question to the city. The amendments do not eliminate every barrier, but they tighten the rules employers have to follow and give applicants a clearer process for raising issues when those rules are not followed.