Vol. 24 No. 11 – ADA and The Hiring Process
ADA AND THE HIRING PROCESS April 28, 2009 In the document entitled, “ADA Enforcement Guidance: Pre-employment Disability Related Questions and Medical Examinations, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) states that “under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), a job offer is real if the employer has evaluated all relevant non-medical information which […]
Vol. 24 No. 12- Compulsory Binding Arbitration For Law Enforcement And Firefighters Declared Unconstitutional
COMPULSORY BINDING ARBITRATION FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FIREFIGHTERS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL April 29, 2009 On April 24, 2009, the First District Court of Appeal, in the case of County of Sonoma v. Superior Court [Sonoma County Law Enforcement Association (SCLEA)], unanimously ruled that a 2003 law violates a county’s authority under the California Constitution to decide […]
Vol. 24 No. 21- The latest on badges from the Attorney General
THE LATEST ON BADGES FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL August 26, 2009 The question of whether one can give a badge to a non-peace officer, which resembles that of a full status peace officer, has been discussed and debated for years. In 2007, the California Attorney General (Opinion No. 06-307) concluded that giving an honorary badge […]
Vol. 24 No. 20- MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES MUST MEET “PRIMARY CAREGIVER” REQUIREMENTS
MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES MUST MEET “PRIMARY CAREGIVER” REQUIREMENTS August 26, 2009 On August 18, 2009, the Fourth District Court of Appeal, issued an opinion in the case of People vs. Hochanadel, et al. holding, among other things, that the medical marijuana dispensary, CannaHelp, did not qualify as a “primary caregiver” nor was it a “cooperative” […]
Vol. 24 No. 19- Prison Litigation Update: The Federal Three – Judge court issued an order to Reduce the prison population by 40,000 Inmates
PRISON LITIGATION UPDATE: THE FEDERAL THREE – JUDGE COURT ISSUED AN ORDER TO REDUCE THE PRISON POPULATION BY 40,000 INMATES August 10, 2009 In our Client Alert dated February 10, 2009, we informed you that the Federal Three – Judge Court in the Coleman/Plata prison litigation had issued its tentative ruling indicating that the prison […]
Vol. 24 No. 18 – A follow-up to “flsa and ‘volunteerism’ by employees”
A FOLLOW-UP TO “FLSA AND ‘VOLUNTEERISM’ BY EMPLOYEES” July 9, 2009 We recently received an inquiry from a client asking whether the provisions of 29 CFR § 553.221(f) might alter the opinion we expressed in our June 2009 Client Alert concerning potential FLSA liability for officers driving to and from work in uniform and in […]
Vol. 25 No. 17- Medical marijuana patient can sue for value of destroyed marijuana
“MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT CAN SUE FOR VALUE OF DESTROYED MARIJUANA” July 6, 2009 On July 1, 2009, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled, in the case of County of Butte v. Superior Court of Butte County (Williams), that a qualified patient or caregiver could sue to recover the value of marijuana plants he or […]
Vol. 24 No. 16 – FLSA and ‘Volunteerism’ by Employees
“FLSA AND ‘VOLUNTEERISM’ BY EMPLOYEES” June 18, 2009 A number of agencies have recently encountered the question of when, or even if, it is permissible for officers to volunteer for civic or charitable activities, while in uniform, without being compensated. An example of such volunteer activity has included a charitable program known as “Shop With […]
Vol. 24 No. 15- U. S. Supreme court relaxes rules on police interrogations without counsel
U. S. SUPREME COURT RELAXES RULES ON POLICE INTERROGATIONS WITHOUT COUNSEL June 16, 2009 The United States Supreme Court, in a 5 – 4 decision, in Montejo v. Louisiana, 173 L. Ed. 2d 955 (U.S. May 26, 2009) made it easier for police to interrogate a criminal suspect after an arraignment, without the presence of […]
Vol. 24 No. 14- U. S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS CHALLENGE TO PROP 215
U. S. SUPREME COURT REJECTS CHALLENGE TO PROP 215 May 19, 2009 The United States Supreme Court refused to hear the constitutional challenge, lodged by the counties of San Diego and San Bernardino, to Proposition 215. Both counties, in a unified action, sued the state of California claiming that, among other things, the requirement in SB […]