Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away from complications from pancreatic cancer on Friday, September 18, 2020. Justice Ginsburg inspired millions and became a beloved icon in a way that is truly uncommon for a jurist. She was the subject of a documentary, a biopic, and an opera. She earned wide acclaim for her
A Step Back For Equal Pay? Supreme Court Vacates 9th Circuit’s Decision in Rizo v. Yovino
This post was authored by Megan Lewis.
The United States Supreme Court has vacated the decision of Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (which covers all of California) in Rizo v. Yovino, which established that employers cannot rely on an applicant’s prior salary history to justify paying one employee differently than another employee
U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Civil Asset Forfeitures are Subject to Eighth Amendment
This post was authored by Paul Knothe.
On February 20, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Timbs v. Indiana, holding for the first time that the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition of excessive fines applies to civil forfeiture by state law enforcement agencies. It did not, however, decide how large a forfeiture
Voter – Backed Pension Reform Is Dealt a Blow by California Supreme Court
This post was authored by Frances Rogers and Brett A. Overby.
Last week, the City of San Diego’s Proposition B, a 2012 voter-approved ballot measure designed to save the City’s weakening pension system, was dealt a potentially fatal blow by the California Supreme Court in Boling v. Public Employment Relations Board. Although put
Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Agency Shop Fees Case
This post was authored by Joshua A. Goodman.
In October 2017, we reported that 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
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
The U.S. Supreme Court Lets Stand an Important FLSA Case on Cash Paid in Lieu of Health Benefits and Overtime Rates
On Monday, May 15, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the City of San Gabriel’s petition for review of Flores v. City of San Gabriel, a 2016 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that offered new interpretations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Therefore, Flores remains the governing
Application of the U.S. Civil Rights Act to Sexual Orientation Discrimination
Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereafter “Title VII”) has long prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in the terms, conditions or privileges of employment. One question of ongoing statutory interpretation has not been definitively answered: what constitutes “sex” for the purposes of employment discrimination? Are the terms “sex” and
U.S. Supreme Court Holds that a Public Employee Can Assert First Amendment Retaliation Claim Based on Employer Perceptions
On April 26, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a public agency can incur liability for a First Amendment violation if it demotes or disciplines one of its employee based on the agency’s mistaken belief that the employee has exercised a right of free expression. The Court’s decision in Heffernan v. City of Paterson
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Regarding the Constitutionality of Compulsory Union Fees
On June 30, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear an appeal in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association to answer the question of whether compulsory “agency shop” fees violate the First Amendment. An “agency shop” arrangement requires non-union member employees to pay compulsory fees as a condition of employment even if