On July 19, 2023, in Progressive Democrats for Social Justice vs. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit ruled that California Government Code Section 3205—which prohibits local government employees from soliciting campaign contributions from their co-workers—violates the First Amendment.
Effective January 1, 2023, SB 1439 imposes the existing limits on campaign contributions solicited or received in Government Code Section 84308 on local elected officers. Previously, the limits applied only to appointed officers. This notable expansion has drawn newfound attention to the scope of Section 84308’s definitions and restrictions.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued guidance regarding the use of software, algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) in employers’ “selection procedures,” in other words, employment decisions related to hiring, promotion and firing. Learn more from RPLG Senior Counsel Spencer Wilson and Associate Anastasia Bondarchuk.
On June 5, our 2023 class of Renne Public Law Group (RPLG) fellows completed their public law programming, which encompassed 10 days of engaging speaker sessions, research projects and valuable mentorship opportunities.
Beginning June 27, 2023, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) expands protections for pregnant employees and job applicants. The PWFA is a new federal law that requires private and public sector employers with at least 15 employees to provide “reasonable accommodations” to known limitations related to qualified employees’ and job applicants’ pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on business operations.
The California Supreme Court recently rejected the Court of Appeal’s broad reading of Government Code section 821.6, which shields public employees acting within the scope of their employment from liability for “instituting or prosecuting any judicial or administrative proceeding” even if the action is “malicious and without probable cause.” The purpose of the statute is to protect public officials from malicious prosecution actions, but the plain language is broad enough to cover other types of tortious conduct.
In San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1248, the Court of Appeal upheld a voter initiative setting an unprecedented one-term limit and significant salary reduction for the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors. While courts have generally upheld term limits, this case tests the outer bounds of such laws.
In Michael G. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court (Kruger, J.) considered whether a juvenile court must automatically order the county to provide services beyond 18 months if it finds that the agency failed to provide reasonable services (here, between the 12- to 18-month extension period). The Court held that the parent is not entitled to an automatic extension of services.
Voter initiatives permit voters to adopt a change in the law at the ballot box. In a recent decision in City of Oxnard v. Starr (2d Civ. No. B314601), the Court of Appeal set forth some limits on the initiative power.
Municipalities in California that rely on the practice of chalking tires to enforce parking restrictions can take solace in a recent Ninth Circuit decision that affirms the constitutionality of the practice and parts ways with Sixth Circuit precedent that had previously raised constitutional questions about
