The emails that replaced rehabilitation evidence made all the difference
A University of California job applicant was given five days to submit evidence of rehabilitation after a background check. He sent angry emails instead.
The applicant enrolled at University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) in fall 2020 at age 65 and applied for a part-time office assistant role in the Graduate Student Resource Center in September 2021 - a student-facing position requiring a background check. He interviewed, got a conditional offer, and started working provisionally.
It took months. A post-pandemic backlog meant results did not come back until January 2022, revealing four drug-related convictions from 2005 to 2007, including two felonies for possession for sale.
An HR consultant reviewed the convictions against the role and sent a pre-adverse action letter on January 5, 2022, advising his history “may” disqualify him. He had five business days to submit rehabilitation evidence.
He sent emails instead. According to the court’s recitation, the applicant called HR staff “assholes,” described them as “witch hunters” conducting “the great Inquisition,” and wrote: “I am not the criminal here you are the criminal for causing me harm and then hiding behind Policy 21.” Two days later - three days short of the required window - UCLA told him he was ineligible.
He sued under California’s Fair Chance Act and FEHA’s anti-retaliation provisions. The trial court granted summary adjudication on the retaliation claims and sent the FCA claim to a jury on one question: did UCLA’s failure to give the full five days cause actual harm?
The jury said no. UCLA’s decision was not based solely on criminal history, it determined, and the university would have reached the same result even with the full response period.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed in a published decision filed September 18, 2026, certified for publication October 13, 2026. The court held the applicant’s emails did not amount to protected activity under FEHA - objecting to background checks is not opposing an unlawful practice, because they are legal. The emails also “went beyond reasonable opposition activity.”
On the Fair Chance Act’s individualized assessment requirement, the court held it is procedural only. Employers must follow the steps, but courts cannot review whether the employer reached the correct conclusion about the link between conviction and job.
For HR teams in California: follow the Fair Chance Act’s steps to the letter - assessment, notice, five-day window - because the court checks the process, not whether it agrees with the call.
