The technology giant could face billions of dollars in damages after a panel of federal judges allowed a class action lawsuit by Illinois users to move forward.
Last week, a federal judge in Santa Ana, California ruled that the Second Amendment does not prevent California from enacting reasonable gun safety laws. This case arose when the California Rifle and Pistol Association, part of the National Rifle Association, challenged a state law that prevents California residents from making, owning,…
Last week a joint motion for approval was filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of California reflecting a settlement agreement between Google and 227 people alleging age discrimination in hiring by the tech giant. The $11 million settlement will be comprised of a minimum amount of over $11,000 for each plaintiff, as well as additional amounts for lost wages on a case-by case basis. As part of the settlement, Google denies having discriminated on the basis of age.
A judge ruled that San Francisco must adhere to the terms of a 10-year exclusivity agreement signed with Lyft in 2015, which prevents it from inviting other bike rental vendors to compete with Lyft.
In a tentative order issued last Friday, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge allowed a former Google employee's lawsuit alleging discrimination by the company against conservatives, men, white people, and people of Asian descent to go forward. The lead plaintiff, whose suit has been joined by a small number of other men, is a former Google engineer who was fired after he circulated an internal memo that was critical of the company's efforts to increase gender and racial diversity among its workforce, and suggested that the lack of female engineers in the profession had to do with biological differences.
The State of California has filed a new lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the Federal Railroad Administration's sudden decision to pull almost $1 billion in funding for a planned high-speed rail connection between San Francisco and Los Angeles was payback for the state's opposition to Trump's plans to construct a wall along the southern border of the US as part of his immigration policy. The state's lawsuit alleges that in the days following certain criticisms made by California Governor Gavin Newsom of Trump's border wall plans, Trump made a series of Tweets criticizing the state's position on his immigration policies as well as its handling of the rail project, demonstrating the link between the funding cancellation and the border wall dispute.
This week the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the lower court's decision upholding three California laws against a challenge by the federal government. The federal government challenged the three laws, which all pertain to the state's status as a "sanctuary" state, on the grounds that they are preempted by federal law and that they violate a doctrine known as intergovernmental immunity.
On Wednesday, March 13, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-09-19 (the “Order”) granting a stay of execution to the 700 plus inmates on death row in the state. The Order also closes the state’s death penalty chamber located in San Quentin prison and withdraws California’s legal injection protocol. A long time opponent…
California has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Northern California to challenge a new regulation the Trump administration plans to enact in order to block access to abortion and family planning services. Specifically, the case seeks to enjoin new rules adopted under Title X of the Public Health Service Act, a family planning program funded by the federal government. Oregon, Washington, and approximately 20 other states are expected to file suit as well.
A group of 16 states, including the border states of California and New Mexico, has gone to court to challenge the Trump administration's attempt to invoke emergency powers in order to fund the construction of a border wall. The lawsuit, which was filed in federal district court in San Francisco, raises not only constitutional issues related to who controls federal spending, but also may turn on issues of standing and statutory interpretation.