Last year, California voters passed Proposition 64 (“Prop 64”), making the recreational use and sale of marijuana generally permissible under California law. Specifically, Prop 64 legalizes the use of marijuana for non-medical reasons by adults age 21 and over. While Prop 64 made the use of recreational marijuana legal under state law as of
Supreme Court Agrees to Look Again at Mandatory Agency Shop Fees
This post was authored by Amit Katzir
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review Janus v. AFSCME, a case out of Illinois challenging the constitutionality of mandatory agency shop fees for public employees. Illinois, like California, is one of several states where agency shop arrangements are authorized in the public sector.
Under
Supreme Court Petition Submitted Regarding Application of U.S. Civil Rights Act to Sexual Orientation Discrimination
In April, we reported on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana, which held that sex-discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Like the California federal trial court in Videckis v. Pepperdine University, the
Accommodating the Religious Practices of a Diverse Workforce
Religious diversity, including the protection of religious minorities, is a core American value, as shown by its prominent placement in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, in the establishment and free exercise clauses. California is, unsurprisingly, a leader in religious diversity. Many religious believers adhere to, and find deep meaning in, religious observances including
Public Employers and Hate Speech
Violent and tragic events in Charlottesville, and the intense national debate that followed, have put the issue of hate speech at the forefront of the public’s attention. A number of publications have addressed the issue of when a private employer can discharge an employee who, on the employee’s own time, participates in organized hate speech.
U.S. Departments of Justice and Education Issue Significant Guidance Regarding Transgender Students in Schools
This blog post was authored by Kim A. Overdyck.
On May 13, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Education (DOE) issued a “Dear Colleague Letter” and accompanying Examples of Policies and Emerging Practices for Supporting Transgender Students in response to the high volume of questions received regarding civil
Ninth Circuit Decision Reaffirms The Difficulty Members Of Law Enforcement Can Face In Asserting First Amendment Claims
Update: On December 11, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided to re-hear Dahlia v. Rodriguez en banc. Accordingly, public agencies can no longer rely on the three-Judge panel opinion discussed below. A panel of eleven Judges will re-hear the appeal. The opinion of that en banc panel of the
Officers Shooting Pepper Balls to Disperse Partying College Students Are Not Entitled To Qualified Immunity
This guest post was authored by Judith S. Islas
Last November UC Davis police donned in riot gear used pepper spray on a group of student protestors at an “occupy” movement demonstration held on the university campus. That pepper spray incident was captured on video. It triggered an internet and media frenzy, multiple investigations and
What Does The Supreme Court’s Ruling In US v. Jones Mean For GPS Tracking By Employers?
Last summer we reported that an employer may under California law use GPS devices to track employer owned or leased vehicles. We recently revisited this issue in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling in United States v. Jones. Although Jones does address the use of GPS devices to track vehicles, the holding
“Last Chance Agreement” Failed To Contain Waiver Of “Skelly” Rights
This guest post was authored by James Oldendorph
On August 3, 2011, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that a public employee had not knowingly waived his right to a due process pre-termination hearing by signing a “last chance agreement,” and that the public employer violated his due process right by not