[WEBINAR] Preparing for Changes in the “Vested Rights Doctrine” - Understanding Plan Design Options
[VIDEO] Legal Update: Is the California Rule in Flux?
[VIDEO] Pension Liability by the Numbers
[VIDEO] Perspectives: The Practical Effects of Today's Pension Programs
Suppose a public employee maliciously and without probable cause files a lawsuit or initiates an administrative proceeding against you. You succeed in obtaining a dismissal, but would like to hold that employee accountable. ...more
On September 23, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued orders in each of the four cases it had accepted for review but deferred pending its resolution of Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Association, et al. v. Alameda...more
Modifications Are Permissible Under the California Rule - In a unanimous decision, the California Supreme Court held that changes made to the County Employees’ Retirement Law, known as CERL, by pension reform measures...more
In a landmark decision of a unanimous court, on July 30, 2020, the California Supreme Court issued its second case in two years on the scope of the “California Rule,” Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assoc. et al., v. Alameda...more
On April 15, 2020, the California Supreme Court scheduled oral argument in the much-anticipated California Supreme Court public retirement case, Alameda County Deputy Sheriff's Association, et al. v. Alameda County Employees'...more
Calif. Supreme Court: San Diegans for Open Government v. Public Facilities Financing Authority of the City of San Diego - Only a party to a contract may bring a legal action under Government Code section 1092 to invalidate...more
The California Supreme Court recently issued its decision in the Cal Fire Local 2881 v. CalPERS case – the first of six so-called “California Rule” (“Vested Pension Rights”) cases pending before the Court. The California...more
As expected, the California Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s holding in Cal Fire Local 2881 v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System et al., concluding that the plaintiffs did not have a vested right to...more
In this episode of The Proskauer Brief, partner Steven Hurd and partner Adam Lupion discuss developments from some of the key cases in labor and employment law in 2018. We will discuss notable cases from the United States...more
In a much awaited announcement, on November 8, 2018, the California Supreme Court scheduled oral argument in CalFire Local 2881, et al. v. CalPERS, et al., which is the first of the five pending vested rights cases that are...more
It’s a big litigation year for California pensions. The California Supreme Court ruled last month that San Diego’s landmark pension cutback legislation, Proposition B, was illegally placed on the 2012 ballot because city...more
When does a public employee’s personal privacy interests outweigh the public’s right to access records? Originally Published in PublicCEO - July 18,2018....more
California’s cities are in crisis mode. With pension costs outpacing revenue growth and severely underfunded retirement systems (the California Public Employee Retirement System is only 68 percent funded), local...more
The California Supreme Court ruled on June 26, 2017 in People v. Superior Court of Riverside County that the Government Code prohibition against a public employee or officer’s participation in contracts in which that person...more
The use of private email servers and communications devices by government officials was a major issue in the 2016 election, from the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email practices to the hacking of a private email account...more
In part 1 of this two-part series we discussed how the City of San Jose v. Superior Court (Smith) will forever change the nature of public service. In part 2, we will offer practical suggestions to respond to this change. ...more
In part 1 of this two-part series we’ll discuss how the City of San Jose v. Superior Court (Smith) will forever change the nature of public service. In part 2, we will offer practical suggestions to respond to this change. ...more
Recent decision points to the original intent of the California Public Records Act in the evolving debate over government transparency. Key Points: ..California Supreme Court rules that emails and text messages sent...more
In City of San Jose v. Superior Court, No. S218066 (Cal. Mar. 2, 2017), the Supreme Court of California decided unanimously that communications made or stored on a public employee's personal account, including emails sent...more
The California Supreme Court has finally decided a question that has, for years, vexed courts, public officials, the media and citizen watchdogs: Are electronic communications — emails, voicemails and texts — on private...more
In deciding last week that communications on public agency employees’ private devices may be subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, the California Supreme Court included some direction to help make the...more
In a major development impacting all public entities subject to the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq., hereafter “CPRA”), on March 2, 2017, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that public...more
In a victory for the San Bernardino County Employees’ Retirement Association (“SBCERA”) and the nineteen other county retirement systems administered under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (Gov. Code, § 31450 et...more
On March 2, 2017, the California Supreme Court ruled in City of San Jose v. Superior Court that where a public employee uses a personal email account or texts to communicate about the conduct of public business, those...more
Decision Expected Soon from California Supreme Court - Public agencies in California should prepare for the likelihood that communications on officials’ and employees’ private devices related to the agency’s “conduct of...more