Application of the U.S. Civil Rights Act to Sexual Orientation Discrimination

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 “gender” interchangeable under the law? And does the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex extend to a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?

Apr 20, 2017 Business & Facilities

The California Supreme Court Holds That Losing Bidder On Public Works Contract Cannot Hold Successful Competitor Liable For Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage.

During a three-year period, American Asphalt South, Inc. (“American Asphalt”) outbid either Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. (“Allan Slurry”) or Doug Martin Contracting, Inc. (“Doug Martin”) on numerous public works contracts to apply a slurry seal coating to roadways throughout Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties.  A slurry seal is a mixture that protects and extends the life of roadways.  Together, these contracts totaled more $14 million.

Apr 18, 2017 Client Update

Jury Rejects Employee’s Claim That She Was Terminated Due to Her Pregnancy and Gender, and in Retaliation for Disclosing Alleged Wrongdoing

LCW Partner Jesse Maddox and Associate Attorney Kimberly Horiuchi helped secure this victory for the City of Stockton. In October 2014, the City hired Plaintiff Jessica Glynn to be its first Office of Violence Prevention (OVP) Manager. The OVP was the brainchild of City Manager Kurt Wilson and was tasked with assisting law enforcement in reducing violent crime. The OVP was funded in large part by a sales tax increase because the rate of violent crime in Stockton was such a pressing issue for voters.  

Apr 18, 2017 Client Update

Deputy Sheriffs’ Claims for Retroactive CalPERS Benefit Enhancement Barred for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies

In a case handled by LCW attorneys Frances Rogers and Danny Yoo for the County of Riverside, a California Superior Court granted the County’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing a lawsuit seeking retirement benefits under the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”). Plaintiffs were current and retired Sheriff’s deputies who were hired by the County when their former employer, a city, dissolved its police department and began contracting with the Sheriff’s department for law enforcement services. Both the city and the County provide retirement benefits through CalPERS.  

Apr 18, 2017 Client Update

Prejudgment Interest for County Retirement Board’s Wrongful Denial of Disability Retirement Benefits Accrues on Date of Wrongful Denial

Frank Flethez worked as an equipment operator for San Bernardino County. He was injured while performing his job duties and later left his position with the County. His last day of regular compensation was July 14, 2000.

Apr 18, 2017 Client Update

Officer Who Accepts Disability Retirement While Termination is Pending is “Honorably Retired” Under Concealed Carry Statutes

The California Penal Code generally prohibits the carrying of a concealed weapon. However, this prohibition does not apply to peace officers, “whether active or honorably retired.” Under Penal Code section 16690, “honorably retired” applies to “any peace officer who has qualified for, and has accepted, a service or disability retirement.”  However, section 16690 also provides that “an officer who has agreed to a service retirement in lieu of termination” is not considered “honorably retired.”

Apr 18, 2017 Client Update

Writings Concerning Public Business Are Public Records – Even if They Are Sent, Received, or Stored on an Employee’s Personal Email, Phone, or Computer

The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal 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 the California Public Records Act (“PRA”).