A case pending in San Diego Superior Court questions the constitutionality of an Ashtanga yoga program provided to students at the Encinitas Union School District. In Sedlock et al v. Baird et al, parents Stephen and Jennifer Sedlock allege that the Ashtanga yoga program is inherently and pervasively religious, having roots in western metaphysical
New Fair Employment and Housing Commission Regulations Impact Pregnant Employees
New Fair Employment and Housing Commission regulations took effect December 30, 2012 and deal with disability discrimination. This blog post will focus on the impact of the new regulations on issues related to pregnancy and the treatment of pregnancy related conditions as disabilities.
The new regulations expand the scope of pregnancy related conditions that can
California Supreme Court Holds That Employee Must Prove That Adverse Employment Action Was “Substantially Motivated” by Discrimination, and Liability is Limited Where Employer Proves It Would Have Taken the Same Action Against the Employee Anyway
Harris v. City of Santa Monica has been pending before the California Supreme Court since 2011. On December 4, 2012, the Supreme Court held oral arguments, and issued its long-awaited opinion on February 7, 2013. The issue pending before the Supreme Court was whether giving a mixed-motive jury instruction under California’s Fair Employment and Housing
State Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Harris v. City of Santa Monica case
Harris v. City of Santa Monica has been pending before the California Supreme Court since 2011. Melanie Poturica and I submitted an amicus brief in the matter, supporting the City’s arguments. On December 4, 2012, the Supreme Court held oral arguments and will issue its opinion within 90 days, in 2013.
In Harris, plaintiff
The Ninth Circuit Addresses What Constitutes an Adverse Employment Action
Determining what constitutes an “adverse employment action” is critical when an employee sues for retaliation and/or discrimination. In order to be able to sustain a claim for either retaliation or discrimination, an employee must sufficiently prove that he/she suffered an adverse employment action. This issue was recently addressed by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of
EEOC Determines That Transgender Employees are Covered Under Title VII
This year, in the case of Macy v. Holder, Appeal No. 0120120821 (EEOC Apr. 20, 2012), the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that transgendered persons are afforded protection from discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
Mia Macy, a transgender police detective in Phoenix, Arizona
Is Bankruptcy The Only Option?
Since June 28, three California cities have chosen to pursue bankruptcy in the face of burgeoning costs and increasing deficits: Stockton, Mammoth Lakes, and San Bernardino. Public agencies have been dealing with financial difficulties for several years, but other than the City of Vallejo in 2008, none had resorted to bankruptcy as an option, until
Ninth Circuit Holds That Marijuana For Medical Use Is Not Protected By The ADA
Although medical marijuana use is legal under California state law, it remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Plus, even though medical marijuana use is legal in California, in 2008 the California Supreme Court, in Ross v. Ragingwire Telecommunications, ruled that an employer may discipline an employee who tested positive for medical marijuana.
Is Attendance An Essential Job Function? Not Always!
Most of us assume that showing up for work is an essential part of our job. Most employers have attendance policies in place that require employees attendance at the work location. However, courts have found that regular attendance is not necessarily an essential function for all jobs. In a recent case, an employee with a
Duty To Provide Notice Of Discipline To Peace Officer Within 30 Days Runs From The Date A Department Makes The Final Decision To Discipline
Government Code section 3304(f), part of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) provides that, when a public agency decides to discipline a peace officer, “the public agency shall notify the public safety officer in writing of its decision to impose discipline, including the date that the discipline will be imposed, within