Author: Trina Clayton
Less than a month after federal immigration officials raided nearly 100 7-Eleven stores nationwide, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents conducted another sweep at the end of January – searching 77 businesses in the San Francisco and Sacramento areas in what was believed to be the largest localized raid since President Donald Trump took office. What’s more, it doesn’t look like this will be the end of the ICE raids. ICE acting director Thomas Homan has made a call for a “400 percent increase” in agency operations focusing on workplaces and, specifically, workplaces in California. In light of this governmental shift, what, exactly, is an employer supposed to do when ICE comes to call?
Fortunately, California employers have been provided slightly firmer ground on which to stand, based, in large part, by a recent law which went into effect January 1, 2018 – the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450).
AB 450’s provisions include the following:
Author: Michael S. Dorsi
Recent revelations indicate that U.S. military or intelligence personnel (and maybe Russians too) using the popular run-tracking app, Strava, may have unintentionally divulged sensitive location information. While these runners may have turned on security features that anonymize their data, their anonymized data became part of Strava’s heat maps, which show popular running routes. A running route around what appears to be an abandoned airfield in the desert can give away that the airfield isn’t so abandoned.
Author: Annie Smiddy
In the case of Sayta v. Chu, on November 29, 2017 the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, clarified the requirements for enforcing settlement agreements pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6 (“Section 664.6”). Most settlement agreements in pending litigation include a provision that provides for enforcement of the agreement pursuant to Section 664.6. The statute allows the parties to take advantage of an expedited procedure to enforce the agreement without filing a separate lawsuit. It’s cheaper, easier, and fulfills the purpose of the agreement – to resolve the parties’ dispute.
However, Sayta confirmed that the expedited procedure of Section 664.6 is only available when the parties request the trial court retain jurisdiction, either in writing or orally before the court, while the case is still pending, before entry of dismissal. The appellant in Sayta relied on the provision in the confidential settlement agreement stating that the parties agreed to enforce the agreement pursuant to Section 664.6. The Court of Appeals determined that this confidential agreement did not constitute a “request” for the trial court to retain jurisdiction, as required by Section 664.6. “‘[T]he court lost subject matter jurisdiction when the parties filed a voluntary dismissal of the entire cause. Since subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or estoppel, the court cannot ‘retain’ jurisdiction it has lost.’” (Sayta, supra, citing Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 Cal.App.3d 200, 206-207.)
Author: Trina Clayton
Along with SB 396 , another new law expanding transgender rights in California is SB 219 – the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights – will go into effect on January 1, 2018. The catalyst for this bill comes from the unique needs of California’s senior LGBT population. Studies have indicated that many older LGBT adults do not have children and report a higher-than average incidence of poor physical health, which includes living with HIV or AIDS. As a result, many LGBT seniors have a heightened need for care when compared to seniors in California generally, but often lack the family support networks available to non-LGBT seniors and will likely rely more heavily on long-term care facilities.
SB 219 makes it unlawful for a facility or its staff to take certain actions because of a person’s actual, or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or HIV status, including:
- Denying admission to a long-term care facility,
- Transferring or refusing to transfer a resident within a facility or to another facility;
- Evicting or discharging a resident;
- Willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronoun;
- Prohibiting residents from wearing clothing that is allowed for any other resident; and
- Restricting the right to associate with other residents.
For specific legal advice regarding gender identity/expression regulations or any other employment issue, please contact Ad Astra for guidance.