EdLawConnect Blog

School districts are no longer authorized to grant permission to persons to carry firearms in school zones and on school campuses, closing a longstanding loophole under the California Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 (Penal Code § 626.9). Now, with certain limited exceptions, no one is permitted to possess a firearm in a school zone or on a school campus

While some predicted agency fees would be invalidated through this highly publicized lawsuit, the Supreme Court’s 4-4 split decision today in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association means California’s mandatory agency fees laws withstand the most recent challenge.

As we commented last October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge from 10 California teachers alleging the mandatory ...

In a decision of first impression, the Fourth District Court of Appeal has held that a public school employee is not immune from a lawsuit for disclosing a Suspected Child Abuse Report (“SCAR”) to anyone other than those specifically listed in the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (Penal Code §§ 11164, et seq.; “CANRA”). Additionally, public school employers may be liable for an employee’s negligent disclosure of a SCAR.

A plaintiff claiming permanent disability stemming from on-the-job injuries suffered a significant blow to his case as a result of deleting his Facebook account. A New Jersey federal district court ruled the plaintiff’s actions merited an “adverse inference” jury instruction, meaning the jury that will eventually hear the plaintiff’s lawsuit will be notified that the plaintiff intentionally destroyed evidence he believed would harm his case. (Gatto v. United Air Lines, Inc. (D.N.J. 2013) 2013 WL 1285285.)

Since the advent of the cellular phone camera, nearly every high school student is equipped to surreptitiously videotape his/her teacher.  While this practice is statutorily-prohibited, what happens when a student breaks the rule and the cellular phone video depicts an image that would subject the teacher to discipline?

To be clear, the Education Code expressly prohibits surreptitiously videotaping a ...

In another blow to California school employers, a Court of Appeal has ruled that in a certificated dismissal or suspension proceeding, the employee is entitled to an award of expenses and attorney’s fees if the district withdraws its accusation against the employee after deciding to proceed to hearing, but before the hearing starts. The ruling clarifies that where an accusation is withdrawn it necessarily follows that the Commission on Professional Competence rule that the employee “should not be dismissed or suspended” within the meaning of Education Code section 44944(c)(1). Such a ruling entitles the employee to all expenses incurred defending against the accusation, including attorney’s fees.