Doe v. California Dept. of Motor Vehicles: A Look at California’s MVR Reporting and Employee Law

A recent case, Doe v. California Dept. of Motor Vehicles, could spark further discussions on how California reports motor vehicle record checks. The case raises important questions about employer law:

• Does the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) practice of disclosing Administrative Per Se or "APS" suspensions to employers infringe on California's privacy and employment law?
• If disclosing APS suspensions is not a breach of candidate and employee privacy, can employers use license suspensions to make hiring and employment decisions?

What are Per Se or "APS" Suspensions?

APS suspensions are administrative reports that result from a determination by the DMV, regardless of whether the driver receives a criminal conviction. For example, an APS suspension may occur when a driver's blood alcohol level is over the legal limit, regardless of whether the driver shows signs of impairment. This triggers a four-month suspension even without a criminal conviction. The DMV provides driving record reports, including APS license suspensions, to various requesters such as employers and insurance companies.

Under California's current privacy and employment laws, employers are generally not allowed to consider an applicant's non-conviction arrest information in hiring decisions. However, the DMV discloses APS and other driver suspensions, regardless of whether the driver ultimately receives a criminal conviction for the conduct that led to the suspension.

To read more about California’s APS suspension laws, take a closer look here.

The Ruling in Doe v. California Dept. of Motor Vehicles 

The issue brought to the court was whether the DMV can publicly disclose the reason for such a suspension (such as an APS suspension for excessive blood-alcohol level) in a driving record when the driver has not been convicted. The DMV currently discloses this information, and the plaintiff argued that this practice effectively discloses information about a non-conviction arrest, violating constitutional and statutory privacy prohibitions. The DMV rejected this argument, stating that revealing the reason for a DMV suspension due to alcohol-impaired driving does not count as disclosing information about a non-conviction arrest within California's privacy and employment law.

The court in Doe v. California Dept. of Motor Vehicles ultimately ruled in favor of the DMV, stating that disclosing reasons for APS suspensions does not violate California's privacy laws related to non-conviction arrest information. This decision establishes a future precedent for similar cases, deciding that disclosing the reason for suspension simply states the outcome.

To read the full case, read more here.

Implications for Employers

Under this ruling, administrative adjudications are considered separate from disclosed arrest records. This means employers may be able to review and consider not only the APS suspensions of applicants but also the reasons for the APS suspensions, allowing employers to make more informed hiring decisions. This ruling offers a new view on the balance between employee privacy and the necessity of thorough and adaptive background checks. As laws and boundaries for protecting employees and job applicants continue to change across the United States, it's critical for employers to frequently consult their legal counsel to stay informed about employment regulations when making hiring decisions involving employee rights and record history.

***This article does not provide legal advice. All readers should not take action on the content of this article without first consulting their own legal counsel.***