On October 31, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard. The Court’s resulting decision now stands to determine the fate of race-conscious admissions in higher education.
Brief Factual Background
Holistic
In June 2021, the Supreme Court declined an invitation to overturn Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, its seminal 1990 case holding that a facially neutral and generally applicable law survives a challenge under the Free Exercise Clause if it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. However, the
On April 26, 2021, the First District Court of Appeal published its decision in Oakland Police Officers Association v. City of Oakland (2021) — Cal.App.5th — (“Oakland POA”). The case provides critical guidance regarding what information a law enforcement agency must provide to a peace officer before conducting a second or subsequent interrogation
Yesterday, on September 18, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill No. 5 (AB 5) into law. AB 5 codifies the “ABC” test for determining independent contractor status that the California Supreme Court adopted in its 2018 decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903. AB 5 adds section 2750.3
In a unanimous decision published today, the California Supreme Court held that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) could share with prosecutors the names of deputies on its “Brady list” in particular cases without seeking a court order after a Pitchess motion. The Court held that the LASD would not violate Pitchess “by
This post was authored by Alison R. Kalinski
The California Supreme Court today reversed the Court of Appeal in City of San Jose v. Superior Court (Smith), and held that communications by a city employee concerning public business on a personal account, such as email, phone or computer, may be subject to disclosure under
This blog post was authored by Jeffrey C. Freedman.
California law requires employers in most private businesses to allow employees to take breaks, or rest periods, of at least ten minutes for roughly each four hours of work. Can an employer require employees during their breaks to keep their pagers and radio phones on,
On October 13, 2015, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued a Published Opinion, No. 12-401, relevant to a law enforcement agency’s dual responsibilities to comply with Brady v. Maryland and California’s Pitchess statutes in the wake of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in People v. Superior Court (Johnson). The Attorney General approved, over
In a long anticipated decision, the California Supreme Court has held that a supervisor’s daily log, or file, was not a “file used for any personnel purposes” under the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights. In 2013, the Court of Appeal ruled that a fire captain’s daily log documenting firefighter performance should have been disclosed to
This post was authored by Jessica Frier
Federal COBRA legislation allows departing employees and dependents to continue coverage under an employer’s group health plan after coverage is lost for almost any reason—including death, divorce, reduction in hours, and even termination for cause. Only the employee’s “gross misconduct” provides a basis to deny COBRA coverage.
But