Vol. 34 No. 26 NINTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS DECISION FINDING FORMER CITY MANAGER VIOLATED FORMER POLICE CHIEF’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
In June 2019 in Greisen v. Hanken,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a District Court’s decision upholding a jury verdict in favor of a former police chief plaintiff in his First Amendment retaliation suit against a former city manager. In reaching its conclusion, the Court also determined the former city manager was not […]
Vol. 34 No. 25 POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY PROPERLY CONSIDER OFFICER’S PREPROBATIONARY CONDUCT IN RESCINDING OFFICER’S PROBATIONARY PROMOTION
In June 2019, the California Second District Court of Appeal held, in Conger v. Cty. of L.A.,[1] that a police department’s decision to deny an officer a promotion was merit based. The officer had failed to report a use of force several months before his promotion to a probationary lieutenant position. The Court further concluded […]
Vol. 34 No. 24 TITLE VII’S CHARGE-FILING REQUIREMENT IS NOT A JURISDICTIONAL PRESCRIPTION AND MUST BE TIMELY ASSERTED BY A DEFENDANT
In a unanimous decision, entitled Fort Bend Cty. v. Davis,[1] the United States Supreme Court held that a certain Title VII requirement was a mandatory claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional prescription. Because such rules are subject to forfeiture if not timely raised and a County employer had been tardy in raising the issue, the employer’s […]
Vol. 34 No. 23 TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT PROVIDE OFFICERS WITH THE REQUISITE REASONABLE SUSPICION OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO STOP DEFENDANT
In June 2019, United States v. Brown,[1] the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the combination of an anonymous tip suggesting no crime and a defendant’s flight from officers, who did not previously communicate with the suspect, did not provide officers with a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity when they stopped and frisked […]
Vol. 34 No. 22 UNDER HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 11362.1, POSSESSION OF LESS THAN AN OUNCE OF CANNABIS IN PRISON IS NO LONGER A CRIME
In People v. Raybon,[1] the California Third District Court of Appeal held the plain language of Health & Safety Code section 11362.1 demonstrated the electorate’s clear intent to decriminalize possession of less than ounce of marijuana, even in prison. In reaching its conclusion, the Court reversed the superior court’s rulings dismissing five inmate defendants’ petitions […]
Vol. 34 No. 21 SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST DEFEATS FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CLAIM
On May 28, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Nieves v. Bartlett, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 3557 (May 28, 2019) held that a plaintiff’s retaliatory arrest claim must pass a threshold showing of the absence of probable cause. The Court held the presence of probable cause will defeat most claims, except where a […]
Vol. 34 No. 20 OFFICERS ENTITLED TO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WHERE NO CLEARLY ESTABLISHED LAW DEMONSTRATED THAT PROBATIONARY OFFICER’S RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED
On May 21, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Perez v. City of Roseville, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14927 (9th Cir. May 21, 2019) held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on each of the probationary officer’s First Amendment claims because the law was not clearly established that the defendants violated […]
Vol. 34 No. 19 DISABILITY RETIREMENT APPLICATION DENIED TO EMPLOYEE WHO SETTLED A PENDING TERMINATION FOR CAUSE BY RESIGNATION
The California First District Court, in Martinez v. Pub. Employees’ Ret. Sys., 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 311 (1st Dist. Apr. 4, 2019), affirmed a trial court’s denial of a petition for mandate relief challenging the denial of a former State agency employee’s application for disability retirement from state service. The Court, agreeing with precedent, concluded […]
Vol. 34 No. 18 NINTH CIRCUIT AFFIRMS MUCH OF DISTRICT COURT DECISION NOT TO ENJOIN ENFORCEMENT OF CALIFORNIA IMMIGRATION STATUTES AB 450, AB 103, AND SB 54
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. California, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 11275 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2019) rejected arguments by the United States on appeal in several aspects pertaining to its request for a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of three California immigration-related laws. Background “The Government of the United States has […]
Vol. 34 No. 8 CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HOLDS THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE AIRTIME CREDIT WAS NOT A RIGHT PROTECTED BY THE CONTRACT CLAUSE AND THEREFORE COULD BE ELIMINATED BY THE LEGISLATURE
On March 4, 2019, the California Supreme Court, in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System,[1] affirmed the lower courts’ determinations that the opportunity to purchase additional retirement service (ARS) credit, also known as “air time” credit, was not a benefit of employment protected by the constitutional contract clause. Therefore, the Court […]