|
Cell Phone Ban Held Constitutional.
The New York Supreme
Court, Appellate Division upheld a school district’s disciplinary
policy prohibiting students from carrying cell phones on school
grounds. Parents challenged the cell phone policy as a violation
of their fundamental right to provide for the care, custody
and control of their children. However, the court concluded
that the policy passed the rational basis test and accepted
the district’s justification of a total cell phone ban as
more conducive to carrying out its pedagogical mission. (Price
v. New York City Bd. of Educ.) Therefore, when considering
policies that affect a parent’s rights with regard to their
children, a school district should consider what valid interests
or concerns the school has in enforcing that policy. A school
district’s interest in carrying out its mission of educating
its students is one such valid interest.
Employment Law
Requirement
of Pre-employment Drug Test for All Public Employment Applicants
Held Unconstitutional.
The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over California,
ruled that it was unconstitutional for a city to require
all applicants for public employment, including a
part-time library page, to undergo drug and alcohol screening.
The court explained that, without individualized suspicion
of drug use, a public entity must demonstrate a “special
need” (i.e., jobs that are safety sensitive or involve direct
responsibility for children) for the drug test that outweighs
an individual’s privacy rights. (Lanier v. City of Woodburn)
Therefore, public entities should be aware that applicants
for employment have a privacy right that prevents the public
entity from requiring drug testing without individualized
suspicion of drug use. However, where the nature of the
employment is highly sensitive, a required drug test may
be upheld.
Ability
to Continue Working for Another Employer Is Not Automatic
Grounds for California Family Rights Act (CFRA) Leave Denial.
The California
Supreme Court ruled that an employee who is unable to perform
assigned tasks because of a serious health condition is
not automatically disqualified from receiving medical leave
because the employee performs a similar job for another
employer. This is because the demands of similar jobs could
vary with each employer. For example, the court noted that
“[a] job in the emergency room of a hospital that commonly
treats a high volume of life-threatening injuries may be
far more stressful than similar work in the emergency room
of a hospital that sees relatively few such injuries.” (Lonicki
v. Sutter Health Central)
General Liability
Public
Entities May Be Held Liable Under the Retained Control Doctrine.
The California
Court of Appeal held that a public entity that hired an
independent contractor, but retained control over the worksite,
could be held liable for injuries suffered by the contractor’s
employee which were caused by the contractor’s tortious
act or omission. (McCarty v. State of California Department
of Transportation) It is therefore important for a public
entity to monitor the work of its independent contractors,
where it has not given up control of the worksite.
Removal
of Crosswalk Markings Does Not Automatically Create a Dangerous
Condition.
The California
Court of Appeal held that a city was not liable for a pedestrian’s
death where removal of crosswalk markings did not create
a dangerous condition. The Court in this case noted that
Plaintiff failed to establish the existence of previous
accidents at this intersection and the removal of the crosswalk
markings had increased the risk of accidents. The Court
also noted that the lack of markings would be evident to
sighted pedestrians, thus, undercutting Plaintiff’s argument
that it was a dangerous condition. (Sun v. City of Oakland)
Although this is a favorable result for public entities,
nonetheless the accident history at a particular location
will play a key role in the outcome of any particular case.
|
