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
Writings Concerning Public Business Are Public Records – Even If They Are Sent, Received, Or Stored On An Employee’s Personal Email, Phone, Or Computer
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
California Supreme Court Decides Landmark Case on Mandated Rest Breaks
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,
Attorney General Issues Opinion Approving Brady List Procedures
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
The California Supreme Court Holds that a Supervisor’s Daily Log is not a “File Used for Any Personnel Purposes” Under the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights
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
Let Them Eat Stale Cake – But They Won’t Be Getting COBRA!
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
California Supreme Court Holds Names of Police Officers Involved in Shooting Are Subject to Disclosure Under the Public Records Act
This blog post was written by David Urban and Shardé C. Thomas
Today the California Supreme Court issued a 6-1 decision in Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach. The case involves the issue of whether police departments are required in response to California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) requests to disclose
California Supreme Court Will Review Whether Firefighters Have Right to Review and Respond to Adverse Comments in Supervisor’s Daily Log.
On February 26, 2014, the California Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeal decision in Poole v. Orange County Fire Authority.
Given the nearly identical language in the Public Safety Officers Bill of Rights Act (“POBR”) as in the Firefighters’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“FBOR”), this case will affect law enforcement
The California Supreme Court Rules That Nurses Do Not Have A Monopoly On Administering Medication In Schools; Trained Unlicensed Personnel May Administer Insulin If Authorized By The Child’s Doctor
This blog post was authored by Meredith Karasch
On August 13, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling on the issue of whether nurses are the only school personnel who may administer insulin to diabetic students. Looking to the plain meaning of state law, it answered that question in the negative. This
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