• If a Decision(s) been issued within the last seven years from the date of submission of their application determining that they committed Misconduct.
• If they have been given notice of allegation(s) of Misconduct or are they currently the subject of any administrative or disciplinary proceeding involving Misconduct (i.e., informal resolution, alternative resolution, investigation, hearing) and whether they are currently being investigated for Misconduct.
• If they have left a position after receiving a notice of allegation(s) of Misconduct or while they were the subject of any administrative or disciplinary proceeding involving Misconduct (i.e., informal resolution, alternative resolution, investigation, hearing)during an investigation for alleged Misconduct in the past seven years from the date of submission of their application.
• If they have filed an Appeal of a Decision. 

Misconduct is defined as:
Any violation of the policies or laws governing conduct at a candidate’s previous place of employment, including, but not limited to, violations of policies or laws prohibiting sexual harassment, sexual assault, or other forms of harassment, discrimination, dishonesty, or unethical conduct as defined by the previous employer.

• Final Administrative Decisions: A written determination by a previous employer as to whether a candidate committed Misconduct. Examples of a final administration decision include but are not limited to a determination by a decision maker (employer or state or federal agency) following a final investigative report and the subsequent hearing, or the imposition of employment discipline or corrective action related to the candidate’s Misconduct; OR 
• Final Judicial Decisions: A final determination of a matter submitted to a court regarding the candidate’s Misconduct that is recorded in a judgment or order of that court.

Appeal is defined as:
A request for a review of a Decision, as defined above. This could be through any previous employer’s applicable appeal process or an appeal of a Judicial Decision through the applicable appeals process. Examples include filing a grievance, using an appeal process defined by policy, or filing an appeal with the appropriate judicial body or agency.

For Academics Applying via UC Recruit or Candidates Applying via ApplicantStack (Extended Studies):

The following mandatory language will now appear in UC-Recruit and all job postings must include this language, including the links:

As a condition of employment, the finalist will be required to disclose if they are subject to any final administrative or judicial decisions within the last seven years determining that they committed any misconduct, are currently being investigated for misconduct, left a position during an investigation for alleged misconduct, or have filed an appeal with a previous employer.

• “Misconduct” means any violation of the policies or laws governing conduct at the applicant’s previous place of employment, including, but not limited to, violations of policies or laws prohibiting sexual harassment, sexual assault, or other forms of harassment, discrimination, dishonesty, or unethical conduct, as defined by the employer.
• UC Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy
• UC Anti-Discrimination Policy for Employees, Students and Third Parties
• APM - 035: Affirmative Action and Nondiscrimination in Employment

For Individuals brought into the University via other systems (i.e. RSAS, Instructional Assistant, etc)

The above language must be provided prior to an offer, and in conjunction with the collection of the disclosure form. See process information below.

For Applicants hired by an open recruitment via UC Recruit (except Librarians)

For Librarian Applicants hired by an open recruitment via UC Recruit

For Applicants hired by a waiver via UC Recruit

For Applicants hired by Extended Studies

For by-agreement instructors in the Division of Extended Studies (3570- Teacher- University Extension- Contract Year, 3572- Assistant Teacher- University Extension, 3575- Speaker- University Extension, and 3580- Course Author- University Extension)

For Non-recruited Postdoctoral Scholars and Visiting Scholar hired via RSAS

For Residents and Fellows hired via Graduate Medical Education

For Students who receive offers through Instructional Assistant system:  

For individuals not subject to an open recruitment or waiver (such as non-salaried academic appointees)

• Required language;
• The Authorization of Release form; and
•  SB 791 and potential AB 810 process is engaged. Click here to initiate SB 791 (request for the Employee Misconduct Questionnaire).

Step III:  Once Cleared, department is notified 
Step IV: Department includes documentation in the appointment file (can be a .pdf) that the candidate received

• the required language;
• the authorization to release form;
• and the notification to proceed.  

Step V.a:  If Dean's Authority, Dean's Office ensures compliance prior to issuing offer 
Step V.b:  If SAVC-AA, EVCAA, or Chancellor Authority, Dean's Office ensures evidence that the candidate is cleared for hire in the file. 
Step VI:  Offer is issued.  

For Staff

Staff subject to the disclosure requirement are processed via campus HR. Please refer to the "Background Check Fact Sheet" on Blink.

For anyone not mentioned above

Please reach out directly to the office that handles the academic appointment for which you are inquiring. 

Individuals who are finalists for tenure track, security of employment track, tenure, security of employment positions, and/or those that disclosed previous misconduct will be subject to the reference check process.

Step 1:  APS is notified to initiate the institutional reference check process

• In the case of a positive disclosure (an employee discloses misconduct), APS will be notified.
• In the case of a finalist for a tenure track, security of employment track, tenure, security of employment position, the Department Chair will notify APS to begin the intuitional reference check process.

Step 2:  APS Conducts the background check

Step 3: Determination

The results of the background check will lead to one of the following determinations:

1. The individual is cleared and the appointment process can continue.  This will yield a notification to the hiring unit to continue.
2. Further information is required. This will yield a request for additional information to the appropriate entities, including the candidate.

Step IV:  Evaluation of Circumstances and Decision

Individuals that are not cleared for hire will have the opportunity to provide additional information. A dossier will be assembled, incorporating disclosed and/or collected information, which will be thoroughly reviewed as part of the overall assessment of the proposed hire's suitability for the position.

For any individual receiving a conditional offer, (such as admitted students with funding to support a position) you must include the following language:

This offer is contingent upon you clearing an Employment Misconduct Disclosure review where you will be required to disclose any final administrative or judicial decisions within the last seven years determining that you committed any misconduct and provide information related to investigations and appeals. 

For any individual receiving a conditional proposal letter or letter of intent (such as faculty appointments), you must include the following language:

This proposal is contingent upon you clearing an Employment Misconduct Disclosure review where you will be required to disclose any final administrative or judicial decisions within the last seven years determining that you committed any misconduct and provide information related to investigations and appeals. 

The below frequently asked questions (FAQs) aim to address common questions and concerns related to the misconduct disclosure requirement and institutional reference check under California SB 791 and AB 810, emphasizing the importance of maintaining a safe and professional environment at the University of California.  

Q. What is California SB 791 and AB 810? 

California SB 791 is a legislative bill that mandates applicants for academic or administrative positions to disclose any final administrative or judicial decisions issued within the last seven years determining that they committed sexual harassment. 

California AB 810 is a legislative bill that mandates applicants for tenure-track and tenure positions to sign a release form that authorizes, in the event the applicant reaches the final stages of the application process, the release of information by the applicant’s previous employers to the UC location concerning any substantiated allegations of misconduct in order to permit the UC location to evaluate the released information with respect to the criteria for a potential job placement. The bill further requires the UC to use the signed release form to make a reasonable attempt to obtain information from the previous employer concerning any substantiated allegations of misconduct.  

Q. How do these new laws impact the UC?   

In response, the University will implement these bills by: 

a. Requiring all proposed hires to disclose any final administrative or judicial decisions issued within the last seven years from the date of submission of an employment application determining that the proposed hire committed misconduct, including sexual harassment. 

       i. Proposed hires will also be permitted to disclose if they have filed an appeal with the previous  employer, administrative agency, or court, if applicable. 

b. Requiring all proposed hires in the Professor series or Professor of Teaching series to sign a release form that authorizes the release of information by the proposed hire’s previous employers to the UC location concerning any allegations of misconduct in order to permit the UC location to evaluate the released information with respect to the criteria for a potential job placement. The release form is required for all employees if the UC location wishes to follow-up with a prior employer. 

c. Requiring all locations to use the signed release form to make a reasonable attempt to obtain information from the previous employer concerning any allegations of misconduct for all proposed hires in the Professor series or Professor of Teaching series regardless of the proposed hire’s responses in the misconduct disclosure questionnaire. 

Q. When is this effective? 

The University of California is implementing SB 791 and AB 810 effective January 1, 2025. This means all academic recruitments opened on January 1, 2025, and thereafter, are subject to the misconduct disclosure requirements, and authorization release and prior employer follow-up where applicable. 

 Not all academic recruitments are processed within UC Recruit, such as search waivers and exemptions (e.g., volunteers). In those situations, effective January 1, 2025, all proposed hires are subject to the misconduct disclosure requirements, and authorization release and prior employer follow-up where applicable. 

Q. Why do we require this misconduct disclosure from all proposed hires? 

Requiring this misconduct disclosure ensures a safe and respectful environment for all students, faculty, other academic appointees, and staff. It helps the institution identify individuals with a history of sexual harassment, thereby protecting the community and maintaining a professional and safe working and learning environment. 

Q. Who needs to comply with this requirement? 

Proposed hires for academic or administrative positions at the University of California must comply with this requirement. This includes positions at all levels, ranks, and steps for all academic series appointees. At a minimum, the proposed hire will be required to submit the misconduct disclosure questionnaire. For some recruitments, this may be required earlier in the recruitment process (e.g., shortlist or interview stages). 

Q. Does this include volunteers and Contingent Workers (CWRs)? 

Yes, a misconduct disclosure is required as part of Onboarding volunteers and contingent workers.  

Q. Does this include reappointment in the same title series?  

No, the academic appointee is not required to disclose at the time of reappointment in the same academic series. 

Q. Does this include a change of series from one academic series to another at the same UC campus (i.e., postdoctoral scholar to assistant specialist)?  

Yes, if the academic appointee was not previously required to disclose at the time of appointment in their previous academic series. However, shifts between TA and GSR appointments in the same hiring unit do not require a new misconduct disclosure. 

Q. Does this include moving from a WOS position to a paid position in the same series, for example, from an Adjunct WOS to a paid Adjunct? 

Yes, if the academic appointee in the WOS position was not previously required to disclose at the time of appointment in the WOS title.  

Q. Does this include employees who are transferring from a different UC campus?  

Yes.  

Q. Does this include FTE transfers within a UC campus? Can the UC require misconduct disclosure from a current UC employee as part of the new normal hiring process?  

While not required by law, it is recommended that each hiring unit exercise their due diligence when hiring from even within the same campus. Hiring units can require misconduct disclosure from all proposed hires even if the proposed hire is a current UC employee.  

Q. What does it mean to be a "Finalist for the position" in the SB 791 (Disclosure of Misconduct) process?

Departments may have different internal processes for determining this.  Generally speaking, this would be someone that has concluded a final interview. 

Q. What types of decisions need to be disclosed?  

Proposed hires must disclose any violation of the policies or laws governing conduct at a candidate’s previous place of employment, including, but not limited to, violations of policies or laws prohibiting sexual harassment, sexual assault, or other forms of harassment, discrimination, dishonesty, or unethical conduct as defined by the previous employer. This includes decisions from educational institutions, employers, courts, or other relevant bodies. 

Q. How recent must these decisions be to require misconduct disclosure?  

Only decisions issued within the last seven years from the date of application submission need to be disclosed. 

Q. How does the candidate submit their misconduct disclosure? Who will see it? 

Disclosure submissions will depend on the academic title and the process used to recruit the individual.  Refer to the individual process descriptions above.

Initial disclosure forms will be collected and reviewed by a third party vendor.  Individuals disclosing a finding will be identified and forwarded to central campus APS for review and follow up.  Records of disclosure will be maintained centrally and will be confidential.

Q. Can a proposal letter or letter of intent be sent to the candidate prior to the completion of the disclosure.

Yes - but only if the letter includes the conditional employment offer language provided on this page.  It is recommended that the disclosure be requested prior to sending such a letter, and at a minimum in parallel with sending the letter.

Q. Where will the completed misconduct disclosures be stored and how long will they remain in our archives?  

The misconduct disclosures will be retained by the University in the personnel file and according to the disposition of records for personnel files when a proposed hire is hired by the University. The misconduct disclosures will be retained by the University according to the disposition of records for recruitment files when a proposed hire is not hired by the University.  

Q. What happens if a candidate fails to disclose such decisions?  

Failure to disclose required information can result in disqualification from the recruitment or appointment process, or termination of employment if the omission is discovered after hiring. It is crucial for maintaining integrity and trust in the hiring process. 

Q. How will the disclosed information be used?  

The disclosed information will be reviewed as part of the overall assessment of the proposed hire's suitability for the position. It will be handled with confidentiality and used solely for the purpose of evaluating the proposed hire's qualifications and ensuring the safety of the academic community. 

Q. Who is involved in the decision-making process if a proposed hire discloses prior misconduct?   

Depending on the disclosure, findings will be reviewed by relevant staff in Academic Personnel Services, may be reviewed by the Assistant Vice Chancellor, Academic Personnel, the Sr. Associate Vice Chancellor, Academic Affairs, leadership with the department, unit, and/or Dean's office.  

Q. Will disclosure of prior misconduct automatically disqualify a proposed hire? 

Not necessarily. The disclosed information will be reviewed as part of the overall assessment of the proposed hire's suitability for the position. 

Q. How will a department know a candidate is cleared for hire?  

See the process section above.  

Q. If the candidate is a proposed hire for a position subject to a campus’s Institutional Reference Check (IRC), will the proposed hire also undergo the IRC process or does this satisfy that requirement?  

A separate process is not required to satisfy SB 791 and AB 810 as long as the institutional reference check process includes the requirements of SB 791 and AB 810. 

Q. What steps does the University take to ensure fairness in this process?  

The University is committed to fair and equitable hiring practices. Each misconduct disclosure will be reviewed in context, considering the severity of the incident, the proposed hire's actions since the decision, and other relevant factors. The goal is to balance transparency and accountability with fairness and rehabilitation. 

Q. Where can proposed hires find more information or seek clarification about this requirement? 

Proposed hires should reach out to their hiring Unit for additional clarification if their questions are not answered on this website or by reading the text of SB 791 and AB 810 which is linked above.

Q. Where can hiring departments find more information or seek clarification about the process?  

Departments should reach out to the campus office that is responsible for the review of the academic appointment for which they are inquiring.

Q. Will this delay our recruitments? 

Delays should be minimal with the active engagement of the proposed hire(s) in the misconduct disclosure process. As each location develops their confidential decision-making and communication process, the campus will consider the timeliness of decisions and communication to avoid significant delays in hiring while also ensuring the safety of the academic community.  

Q. How does this requirement align with the University’s commitment to a safe and inclusive environment? 

By enforcing this requirement, the University of California demonstrates its commitment to fostering a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment for everyone. It helps ensure that individuals with a history of misconduct, including sexual harassment, are identified and assessed appropriately, upholding the values and integrity of the academic community. 

Q. Is every proposed hire required to complete a misconduct disclosure? 

No. Only those proposed hires the University of California has determined meet the minimum employment qualifications may be required to complete a misconduct disclosure. At a minimum, all proposed hires must complete the misconduct disclosure.

Q. Is every proposed hire required to complete a release form? 

A release form may be a required part of the application materials for all academic recruitments. The release form is required for all tenure-track/tenured and potential/security of employment faculty positions.