As previously reported, effective January 1, 2018, Assembly Bill (AB) 195 requires summary statements for all local ballot measures that impose or raise a tax to include the amount of money the tax will raise annually and the rate and duration of the tax to be levied.
State lawmakers have indefinitely extended previously approved limits on disciplining students for defiance and disruption and have expanded the list of issues that may be addressed through the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP).
Schools may soon be fielding requests to administer Epidiolex, a drug containing cannabidiol (CBD), a chemical component of marijuana that does not create a "high," to students.
California lawmakers have approved a budget trailer bill that imposes new obligations on public sector employers related to deducting union dues and fees from workers' paychecks.
In a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court has held that non-union public employees may no longer be required to pay mandatory agency fees on the grounds that such fees violate the First Amendment. In so holding, Janus v. AFSCME reverses 40 years of legal precedent.
Overturning a longstanding precedent, the United States Supreme Court has held in Janus v. AFSCME that public employees may not be compelled to pay mandatory agency fees, or "fair share" fees, to public-sector unions, because such fees violate the First Amendment.
New requirements for using federal funds become effective this coming fiscal year. The requirements apply to non-federal entities such as school districts, institutions of higher learning, and state and local governments.
On June 4, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided theMasterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case in a 7-2 decision. While this case had the potential to provide new guidance on the complex intersection between the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and the rights of individuals to religious freedom, Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion is narrow and leaves many qu
The Ninth Circuit ruled in Rizo v. Yovino that using an employee's prior salary as a basis for establishing their initial salary is a violation of the federal Equal Pay Act.