Joe, Joey, Joe-Baby, Sexist: Where’s Your Imposter Syndrome?

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman responds to a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing soon-to-be First Lady Jill Biden for using the academic title she earned. Professor Grossman dissects the op-ed, penned by a retired lecturer at Northwestern University, and explains the deep and pervasive sexism behind it.

Read More

Department of Human Resources v. International Union of Operating Engineers

Docket: F078825(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 17, 2020

Judge: Donald R. Franson, Jr.

Areas of Law: Arbitration & Mediation, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

The State entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Union regarding terms and conditions of employment for certain state employees classified as bargaining unit 12. The State subsequently appealed the trial court’s order denying its petition to vacate or correct an arbitration award determining that DWR had violated article 16.7(G) of the MOU by using purged documents to support the adverse disciplinary action taken against the employee. The Court of Appeal concluded that the arbitration award interpreted and enforced article 16.7(G) of the MOU in a manner that constitutes a violation of the constitutional merit principle, because it impedes the ability of state departments to make reasonable and sound employment decisions based on merit. Therefore, the award violated public policy and the trial court erred in denying the petition. The court reversed the trial court's order on the petition and the ensuing judgment, remanding the matter to the trial court with instructions to enter a new order vacating the award.

City of Fresno v. Fresno Building Healthy Communities

Dockets: F080264(Fifth Appellate District) , F080265(Fifth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 17, 2020

Judge: Snauffer

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Election Law, Government & Administrative Law

The City filed a complaint for declaratory relief to establish whether Measure P, the Fresno Clean and Safe Neighborhood Parks Tax Ordinance, has been duly enacted through the voters' initiative power. On the same day the City filed its action, FBHC filed its own complaint for declaratory relief and petition for writ of mandate, seeking a declaration declaring that Measure P had been duly enacted. The Court of Appeal consolidated the cases and endorsed the holdings and reasoning of All Persons City and County of San Francisco v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition C (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 703, 708. Finding that All Persons was controlling in this case, the court concluded that neither Proposition 13 nor Proposition 218 affects the voters' initiative power, and therefore neither imposes a two-thirds voting requirement on the passage of voter initiatives that impose special taxes. The court rejected the Association's policy argument, noting that the Association's policy concerns are best addressed by the Legislature. The court reversed the judgments; on the City's action, the court ordered the trial court to enter a new judgment in favor of FBHC declaring that Measure P has passed; and on FBHC's action, the court directed the trial court to enter a new judgment granting FBHC's request for declaratory relief and declaring that Measure P has passed.

California v. Palacios

Docket: E074054(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: December 17, 2020

Judge: Carol D. Codrington

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Senate Bill 1437, passed in 2018 and signed into law, prospectively amended the mens rea requirements for the offense of murder and restricted the circumstances under which a person can be liable for murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The Bill also established a procedure permitting certain qualifying persons who were previously convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine to petition the courts that sentenced them to vacate their murder convictions and obtain resentencing on any remaining counts. Defendant-appellant Alexander Palacios felt he was entitled to such relief. He appealed an order denying his petition to vacate his first degree murder conviction and obtain resentencing under Senate Bill 1437. Defendant argued the trial court erred in summarily denying his petition because he established a prima facie case entitling him to a full hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95. The Court of Appeal rejected this contention and affirmed the postjudgment order denying defendant’s section 1170.95 petition.