As 2017 kicks off, employers should be aware that a number of new state-wide laws and local ordinances begin taking effect. In this blog, we highlight just a few that California’s public employers should now be implementing.
Employee Who Claims Retaliation Based on Opposition to Employer Actions Must Establish a Reasonable Basis in Law to Support His or Her Belief that the Employer Acted Unlawfully
David Dinslage worked in the City of San Francisco’s Recreation and Parks Department to provide programs designed solely for members of the public with disabilities. The Department later concluded that segregating its recreation programing failed to give patrons with disabilities access to all of the programs it provided to the general public. The Department began to restructure its programs to focus on inclusion of all patrons, including those who are disabled. Dinslage disagreed with the programmatic changes and refused to implement them. The Department documented his refusal in his annual performance evaluation and rated him as not meeting performance objectives.
The Court of Appeal recently decided that the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA) requires a charter city to meet and consult in response to a union’s request before its city council places a measure on the ballot to repeal a binding arbitration provision in the city’s charter.
In Depth Analysis: Public Agency Attorney Who Served as Advocate and Advisor in the Same Administrative Matter May Also Advise on Subsequent Litigation
In 2004, Drakes Bay Oyster Company (Company) purchased and took over a private company’s oyster operations located on a site owned by the US government in Drakes Estero at Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin County. The Company operated the facility under an agreement with the federal government.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) terminated Kevyn Thaxton, a corrections officer, and three other correctional officers for dishonesty and other misconduct. Thaxton appealed to the State Personnel Board (Board). The Board scheduled an evidentiary hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Prior to the hearing, Thaxton and the Board identified Thaxton as a witness.