the court martin buchanan appearing for the appellant frank in already this case arises under a two thousand and thirteen law passed by the california legislature to remove employment barriers for those with expunged criminal convictions according to the author of this law its intent was to break the revolving door cycle of crime by giving folks a fair chance at a job without the discrimination of having a criminal record as an action in two thousand and thirteen this law now prevents employers from asking about seeking or using any information about expunged criminal convictions in making employment decisions including hiring and firing we've alleged in our complaint that mr  hired by the event in may two thousand and fifteen to install alarm systems at that time vivant was unaware of his expunge conviction they haven't been learned of the expunged conviction by reviewing the substance of his application for registration as an alarm agent it demanded that he produce the court records from the underlying conviction and ultimately it terminated his employment because of the expunged conviction asserting that he would be unable to get licensed when in fact he was licensed by the bureau about a month later on appeal eventually i'm sorry it's probably my feel you're here but word is the word expunged come from them statute this is the statute itself the verdict of guilty the court then dismisses the accusation or information against you and the statute provides that you will then be released from all penalties and disability resulting from the offense now there are some minor exceptions in the statute things such as firearm possession holding public office so for those purposes you still have a conviction for but for most for most purposes you are no longer convicted of a crime  alarm company statute right so under the alarm company act if you work you have to have either a temporary registration or a valid registration act so at the time he's applies to violent and they hire him he doesn't have a registration correct at the time of his application that's correct rick and then the statute goes on to say that if you think convicted of a crime prior to applying for registration that you don't get a temporary application and you can't work until you get a permanent correct correct and you can't have a temporary application normally if you apply you just carry your piece of paper around is that right yes i may stick it in your pocket and if somebody asks you are you certified you say yes there i am yes the is your temporary yes but as i understand it he can't have a temporary because he had been convicted of a crime prior to applying for that first reason is that the language of that particular business and professions code provision as you said refers to being convicted of a crime and he wasn't convicted of a crime because under twelve zero three point four his conviction was wiped out for virtually all purposes and the case law in california says that because of the statutory language of twelve zero three point four saying that it removes all disabilities and penalties from the offense the conviction may be treated as if it were not a conviction for most purposes but then they the application that you need to submit which is supplied by the alarm company b that it says when you write down convictions including those that have been dismissed correct true and i guess i would i'd like to point out a key difference between the statutory language that you were referring to that says you have to include those and the statue or tory language of the other statute regarding temporary working as an alarm agent the statutory language that says that the bureau gets to consider convictions even if there has been an expungement that's business and professions code seven five nine one point one zero eight two but it has it's specifically has the language irrespective of a subsequent order under twelve zero three point four whereas the other statute regarding temporarily temporarily working as an alarm company agent does not have that language you don't you but don't you read the two together in the form the form is issued employer to have blank copies of that form of a picture and that's the one the form the official forum issued by the bureau says it includes dismissed or expunged yes it does but there's nothing in the law that is maybe this is just a slip up by the legislature that it didn't consider this particular kind of situation and i don't i'm have a completely open mind on this case i just have to tell from getting a license or not and i think that's sort of that issue that kind of slipped through the cracks in the legislation here yes so first of all the key question that is before the court is whether the exception that it is relying on is an exception that says the employer is required by law to obtain information regarding a conviction of an appellant so  not required by law to take that completed application for nori it could have given him the blank form and said here you go send this directly to the bureau so the question is required by law they weren't i understand they did that in this case they weren't required by law to do so the other point i would make is as there is the employer can adopt policies by which it would completely comply with labor code for thirty two point seven and all of the licensing requirements  saying we will not even accept applications for employment unless you're already registered with the bureau and the statute is clear you don't have to already be employed to submit an application so they could just say to all applicants listen if you to work for us first go get registered with the bureau bring us your registration card and then you can work in his alarm company agent that would satisfy all of the requirements and that would that would make bring vivant and other similar companies into compliance with for thirty two point seven and i see my time talking down no that's fine because we've had these questions i mean it's kind of that tricky little statute is let me ask you then what relief is he seeking well the statute for thirty two point seven provides for damages it provides for treble damages for intentional violations which we believe this was an intentional violation and i guess that kind of highlights the last point i wanted to make this is a remedial statute under california law or a remedial statute is supposed to be construed liberally in favor of those it's designed to protect and conversely of course exceptions should be construed narrowly  so it seems to me van is asking you to construe this required by law exception very very broadly rather than narrowly and instead this statute should be construed liberally in favor of mr noory as the type of person seven subdivision am one which basically says the prohibitions of the statute don't apply if the employer is required by law to obtain information regarding a conviction of an applicant so and see how how can it comes to believe that it's required by law to have this information ok last question you have maybe not in the record night or given i missed it but that is there's nothing in the record that says he went back to th after this and said now i have my piece of paper there is nothing in the record that says that thank you your honor how can i as well and sure i think this is already been asked but i want to make sure but as i understand it the alarm company  permits individuals to work with a temporary license while waiting for the bureau to render a decision for their application yes to the act prohibits temporary licensing of plain ploys who have been convicted of a crime that's correct how in the world does that all work together with your only solution being well have them apply and get their license i mean the employee or to be employee how does that going to work how does that affect the so called temporary licensing wouldn't the company have to look at some point in time what in the world the particular applicant is going to give to be clear or the temporary employment provision yes let me be clear i'm making two alternative arguments the first argument i made was that mr noory was not convicted of a crime within the meaning of that particular statutory provision that the expungement meant he was not convicted of a crime and therefore he can work templer so putting that aside as an alternative argument i was arguing ok go ahead i was arguing that vivid and other employers in their position  simply adopt policies saying we won't even consider you as an applicant until you're actually registered ok so in other words and in fact wipe out the possibility of a temporary censor relation as a practical matter yes that that would it but there's nothing in the law that says that guarantees vivan the right to hire temporary workers i mean the statute does provide for that but it doesn't it doesn't say that even if even if that would violate the labor code for thirty two point seven you still have that right i'm just saying that would be a way of reconciling the two statutes all right thank you thank you good morning your honour's chut cronenberg on behalf of the pelly didn't think this appeal turns on a simple question was the event required by law to obtain information about a llants expunged from the action if the answer is yes they can face any liability because labor code section for thirty two point seven m one exams employers from the requirements to obtain information and expand convictions there's two laws that requires vivan to obtain information about expunged convictions and i'm going to start with section seven five nine eight point seven of the convictions but also prior expunge convictions convictions subject to one to zero three point four and i want to walk through section seven five ninety eight point seven men can be helpful to me because i don't see where  the second sentence which appellants counsel sort of went to didn't discuss during the argument but then it goes on to say that this subdivision shall apply only if the applicant for registration has disclosed the conviction to the bureau on his or her application form again the application forms asked about convictions including expunged convictions they didn't had no way of knowing whether it could send an employee out into customers homes unless it saw what the answer was to question ten of the b s sayas form and you can see the b s i as form an excerpt of record thirty five or an excerpt of record  fifteen were in which the pellant alleges in his complaint that he answered yes to the question about expunged convictions you know in this case because appellant disclosed his expunged conviction on the b s i s form that the d s i asked drafted and the b s i s asked about expunged convictions vivant couldn't assign the person to work as an alarm agent during the pendency of the registration differently requires it to allow him to work as a temporary alarm company employee section seven five nine eight point seven a the first paragraph says if the person hasn't been convicted of a crime you can send the person out into the field right then i guess from then saying is you don't have to hire temporary workers are not required by law to hire temporary workers you may you may but you are not required by law to do so right people to be alarmed agents who are already registered with the b s then i don't have to go through any of this but when someone comes to vivat and says i'm an registered the regulations kick in and then vivan has to do all sorts of things that have been has been one of the things it has to do is to look at the b s i ask form see if the person has been convicted of a crime right is it have to look at the farm because the second sentence of section seven five ninety eight point seven b says that this subdivision shell apply only if the applicant for registration has disclosed the conviction to the bureau on his or her application form to that required by to look at the application form yes because because if you look at the first sentence of that that section it says that that you know that the individual shall not be assigned to work as in a large beach into if they've been convicted of a crime and then the second sentence says how do you know if they've been convicted of a crime you look at the application for the registration to determine whether they've disclosed the conviction to the bureau on the application form and the idea on the answer to this is that and in your mind that those statues is to not hire temporary employees which maybe isn't in the best interest of anybody but that's the only way that you can reconcile these two statutes no i think  i don't think there's any conflict between any statutes i think section four thirty two point seven one provided it provides an exception to the rule that you can't take an employment action based on an expunged conviction there's an exception were an employer is required by law to obtain information about an expunged conviction and if someone puts on their on their alarm agent application up process they give interdicted were required by law to obtain information about the conviction applied for an alarm agent application got the permanent registration different doesn't have to do anything because they are there are the persons already register but here the person was unregistered when they came to seven b maybe you can adopt the argument that appellant's counsel made that well convicted of a crime that doesn't include expunged convictions but the problem with the poem to argument is the second sentence of seven five nine eight point seven b talks about just determine whether you've been convicted of a crime you need to look at the application form and the b s i s application form a right or wrong mentions not just convictions but they said you he still have to answer this question even if you haven't expunged that the board made denial licens on certain grounds and the first ground is whether whether employees been convicted of a crime and then it goes on at the end to say irrespective of the subsequent order under the provisions of section denied a light shall not be denied a license solely on the basis of the conviction that is dismissed pursuant to section one two zero three point four but certainly whether someone's been convicted of a crime is a factor that the bureau looks at in the terminal whether to grant a license and this public policies important you know appellants counsel made good public policy arguments about why you know why expunged conditions should be secret during the larby aging process but you know the countervailing public policy is that before someone goes into customers homes whether even if their conviction has been expunged like appellants domestic violence conviction the state of california should that that person in the public policy is embedded in the statutes here and the statutes here you know require them to look at the form to make sure that you know the for you send someone in the customer's homes you've got to know whether the person is to be convicted of a crime or not i think  alarm company employee the you know once to answer that question first of all when vince required by law to obtain information about a palance wrongdoing here which i would say is irrelevant but when you actually look at this it takes what under the regulations takes one to eight months before you know you determine whether someone gets registered so when a when appellant applied for the job you know vivant didn't know how long this process was going to take investment terminated the person for an able to get licensed and living could take whatever action it wanted were it not suing for anything after that action correct used up all your time but we'll give you another minute just to quickly clear up a couple of points there is a wrongful termination claim for wrongful termination and violation of public policy which is based on the same statute but that's a separate cause of action i think the judge wardlaw really  put her finger on it by asking whether the event was required by law to hire temporary workers and that's the issue we're looking at is what is the exception vivan is reliant on is the exception that the employer is required by law to obtain information regarding a conviction of an appellant of an applicant their only argument is that there are required to do so when they hire someone temporarily but they've just admitted they're not required by law to hire temporary workers therefore they're not required by law to seek information regarding an expunge conviction i think that's he wasn't required to apply for a temporary position either i mean you know it's sort of like seems to me like a circular argument right but mr mr nearly didn't have the correct piece of paper to work he wasn't applying for a temporary position was applying for a position as an alarm company a understand and if but he knew that he couldn't work without either share a certification issued by the board biro or in the case of it were he to work before that he knew he couldn't work if he had a the have been don't need licenses unless they've been convicted of a crime indicates some kind of public policy or something that would encourage the hiring of temporary workers and you're saying well the law and that's the exception we're looking at here all right thank you very much thanks to both of you for a very interesting argument and very thing the case just argued is submit