Building the Golden Parapet: California’s Developing Role as the Sanctuary State for Reproductive Rights Nationwide

Written By: Christopher B. Dolan and Vanessa C. Deniston

This week’s question comes from Amanda in Richmond CA who asks: I have a number of young female relatives living in states that are expected to ban abortion. I am deeply concerned for their safety and bodily autonomy should they have an unplanned pregnancy. As a native Californian, I feel deeply privileged to live in a state that recognizes  fundamental reproductive rights, but what about my relatives? Can our state help them? If so, how and to what extent?  

Thank you for your timely and thoughtful question. Weeks after the Supreme Court’s unprecedented decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the constitutional recognition of a woman’s right to control her own reproductive destiny, many states with laws recognizing these rights are still reeling from the shock and grappling with how to respond. California lawmakers, however, have been anticipating and preparing for this moment for years and were ready with immediate, aggressive action. On June 24, 2022, the very day the Supreme Court announced its decision, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1666, legislation designed to insulate patients and providers from civil liability in other states seeking to impose their anti-abortion laws on individuals within California’s borders. Newsom has been adamant California will welcome women from other states seeking abortion care, stating,

“We’re not going to be asking for your ID. We’re not going to be asking you a litany of questions that are asked in almost every other state. You have a right to confidentiality.”

Post-Roe, California is the nearest legal abortion provider for an estimated 1.4 million women. It is estimated that up to 16,000 people will travel to California seeking an abortion per year. There can be no doubt that this is a humanitarian health crisis of epic proportions and will greatly impact California, the state slated to become a west coast stronghold for reproductive rights. To meet these challenges, Governor Newsom has proposed a $125 million dollar package to expand access for women within the state and help the state prepare for the influx of out-of-state women seeking reproductive healthcare that are likely to travel to California from states imposing bans or otherwise restricting access. 

In addition to AB 1666, there are twelve other bills currently under consideration by California’s legislature regarding reproductive rights within the state. Several of these bills address extending resources and support to out-of-state individuals seeking abortion access and shielding providers from out-of-state legal attacks. A few of these include: 

  • SB 1142 – Establishes an “Abortion Support Fund” to provide grants to California organizations assisting patients, including out of state patients traveling to California, in overcoming barriers to abortion access through practical and logistical support such as covering the cost of travel expenses and medical procedures.  

  • AB 2091 – Enhances privacy protections for medical records related to abortion care under California’s Reproductive Privacy Act, greatly limiting disclosures to out of state law enforcement and third parties seeking to enforce out of state abortion bans. 

  • AB 2626 – Protects abortion providers in California by prohibiting the removal or suspension of medical licenses of a licensed providers performing or assisting in abortions in California, compliant with California law. 

This November, Californians will have an opportunity to vote on SCA-10, a proposed amendment to the California State Constitution that would explicitly enshrine the fundamental right to seek an abortion and access contraceptives. Currently, that right exists under California’s Reproductive Privacy Act, which ensures privacy and liberty in personal reproductive decisions. SCA-10 seeks to further cement these rights by adding direct and unambiguous language to the state constitution. In relevant part, the proposed amendment in SCA-10 reads: 

“The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual’s reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.” 

For the first time in this nation’s history, the U.S. Supreme Court has made the decision to revoke a fundamental right previously recognized nationwide. Prior to this Court’s recent reversal, cases concerning the interpretation and limits of fundamental rights have either been expanded or clarified, but upheld. The significance of this preternatural decision by the Supreme Court cannot be understated as it signals, unambiguously, that other fundamental rights currently recognized at a national level are at risk of being recalled and shifted back to individual states to define, redefine and interpret as their state legislature sees fit. This will inevitably create cultural polarization and legal inconsistencies state to state. 

For now, out-of-staters seeking refuge in California from oppressive laws in their home states limiting or revoking their reproductive rights, have resources that are likely to expand even further by the end of the year. 

read more

How will Supreme Court Opinions Affect California?

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Cristina Garcia

This week’s question comes from Leticia who asks: Lately, the news has focused on the Supreme Court and their rulings. I’m concerned how all this will affect me. I live in the Bay Area and don’t plan to leave California any time soon. I want to know how the opinions released by the Supreme Court of the United States affect Californians? 

Dear Leticia,

Thank you for your question. The Supreme Court of the United States, also called SCOTUS, has released a series of opinions that affect various issues, from reproductive rights to environmental protection. A question that many Californians are asking themselves is how do the SCOTUS decisions affect our state?    

To understand how the SCOTUS decisions will affect Californians, reviewing the Supremacy Clause is essential. The Supremacy Clause is a clause within Article VI of the United States Constitution, which states that federal law is the “supreme law of the land.” Federal law preempts state law if it interferes with or conflicts with federal law. 

For example, the case of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, et al. illustrates how the Supremacy Clause preempted New York state law. This case involved two men who applied for permits to carry a concealed weapon in public. Under New York State’s Sullivan Act, local officials were given discretion in determining whether the applicant proved “good moral character” and “proper cause” for needing the concealed-carry licenses for self-protection distinguishable from the general community. Local officials determined that neither of the men had demonstrated proper cause and denied their requests. The two men then sued the state officials who oversee the process of licensing applications, alleging that their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by denying their unrestricted-license applications.

After reviewing the case, the SCOTUS determined that “New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment. It prevented law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.” (Id.) The SCOTUS effectively struck down New York State’s Sullivan Act, which placed restrictions on individuals carrying concealed weapons. 

The SCOTUS decision is important to California specifically, as we have similar gun control laws to New York, and the recently decided case is now precedent. This means that the SCOTUS opinion will be used as authority by other courts when deciding subsequent cases involving similar facts or similar legal issues. Therefore, they SCOTUS opinion may be used to challenge gun laws in California. 

Although in New York’s case, the SCOTUS determined that federal law preempted state law, it has also issued opinions that embolden a state’s ability to enact legislation on various other issues, including those which the SCOTUS itself had once settled. A couple of those decisions are Dobbs, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, et al., which overturned the landmark case of Roe v. Wade. The SCOTUS opined that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. They would return the authority to regulate abortion to the states. As a result, each state can ban abortions, place restrictions on abortions, or allow for safe abortions to take place. Similarly, in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the SCOTUS limited the federal EPA’s ability to overhaul the nation’s electricity supplies in favor of wind power and other renewable resources. Therefore, allowing the states to determine what legislation to enact. Thus, although the SCOTUS opinions did not involve California, they may affect California laws. The cases discussed above are a short synopsis of the SCOTUS opinions. We strongly encourage everyone to read the opinions themselves or the detailed summaries of organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 

read more

Injured at a Baseball Game: Who is at fault?

Written By: Christopher B. Dolan

If You’re in the Stands, Keep Your Eye on the Ball: Over the past decade, at the beginning of baseball season, I have published a column concerning who is responsible if someone gets hit with a line drive, foul ball and/or broken bat while watching a game. As a lawyer, and a big Giants fan, I like to start off the season by saying, put down your cell phone and keep your eye on the ball during play. A distraction can lead to serious and even life threatening injury.

Balls and bats leaving the playing field and entering the stands are not uncommon. In a 2014 Bloomberg News analysis of ballpark injuries, it was reported that each year in the United States roughly 1,750 spectators are injured by batted balls at major league ballparks. The study showed spectators were much more likely to be hit with an errant ball than a player was to be hit with a pitch. While most injuries are thankfully minor, there are reports of severe injuries, and even death, due the sport’s use of wooden bats and 90 mph plus fastballs.

In an article published in the Boston Globe by Catherine Cloutier on June 09, 2015, Edwin Comber, a baseball statistician, is quoted as saying that about 73% of foul balls go into the stands. A 2000 lawsuit against the Red Sox revealed that during a five-year period in the 90’s, 36 to 53 fans per year were hit by balls outside the field of play. Furthermore, there have been reports of skull fractures and even brain injuries, as a result of bats and balls entering the stands. As the fans demand to be ever closer to the action, and the field is filled with high-priced seats closer and closer to the plate and baselines, the risk of injury goes up just as fast as the price.

The issue of liability for fans’ injuries was addressed by the California Supreme Court in 1935 in the case of Quinn v. Recreation Park Ass’n, 3 Cal.2d 725, where the court held that one of the natural risks assumed by fans attending major league games is that of being struck by batted or thrown balls. The Court ruled that the franchise and/or park owner/operator is not required, nor does it undertake, to insure patrons against injury from such source. All that is required is the exercise of ordinary care to protect patrons against such injuries. Management is not obliged to make each seat safe from flying balls. The court pointed out that many patrons prefer to sit where their view is not obscured by a screen.

The duty imposed by law is performed when screened seats are provided for as many as may be reasonably expected to call for them on any ordinary occasion and if a spectator chooses to occupy an unscreened seat or is unable to buy a screened seat and chooses to occupy one that is not protected, they, “assume the risk of being struck by thrown or batted balls; and, if injured thereby, is precluded from recovering damages therefor,” as stated in Brown v. San Francisco Ball Club.

In Neinstein v Los Angeles Dodgers Inc. (1985) 185 Cal.App.3d 176, the Court of Appeals held that:

…The quality of a spectator’s experience in witnessing a baseball game depends on his or her proximity to the field of play and the clarity of the view, not to mention the price of the ticket. As we see it, to permit plaintiff to recover under the circumstances here would force baseball stadium owners to do one of two things: place all spectator areas behind a protective screen thereby reducing the quality of everyone’s view, and since players are often able to reach into the spectator area to catch foul balls, changing the very nature of the game itself; or continue the status quo and increase the price of tickets to cover the cost of compensating injured persons with the attendant result that persons of meager means might be priced out of enjoying the great American pastime. To us, neither alternative is acceptable…

Despite the Court’s unwillingness to intervene to reshape baseball through tort law, I am happy to report that all thirty teams in the MLB have decided to extend safety netting and screening all the way down the first and third baselines to the foul pole. So, if you are in the lower section, you should be better protected from line drives and broken batts. If you are in the upper decks, keep your eye on the ball because, if you are in an unprotected seat, you are legally assuming the risk of injury.

read more

Masks Mandates and Public Transportation: How Does One Judge Have The Power to End The Mask Mandate? 

Written By Christopher Dolan and Kim Levy

This week’s question comes from Bill S. from San Francisco who asks: I’m taking my family to Hawaii in a few weeks and just learned that a Florida judge struck down the mask mandate for airlines. I’m confused about how this will impact our trip. Does this mean that no one will have to wear masks on the airplane?  How can one judge in Florida end the mask mandate for the whole country? The end of the airline mask mandate is concerning since I have one child too young to be vaccinated.

Hi Bill,

I certainly appreciate your concern and will hopefully answer your question. Before I start, I would like to give you some background on the Federal Transportation Mask Mandate. In January of 2021, after being sworn in, President Biden signed an executive order making it a violation of federal law to ride public transportation without a mask.

US health officials scheduled the mask mandate to expire on April 18, 2022. However, on April 13, 2022, they extended the federal transportation mask mandate by 15 days in order to assess the recent rise in COVID-19 cases.

Why was the mask mandate struck down?

On April 18, 2022, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Tampa-based federal court judge, ruled that the federal transportation mask mandate was unlawful. Judge Mizelle struck down the mandate on two grounds:

  1. she found that the CDC exceeded the authority provided by Congress; and
  2. the enactment of the mandate violated administrative law, which prescribes a process that executive branch agencies must follow to make new policies.

First, Judge Mizelle ruled that the CDC lacked the authority to require masking on public transportation. She took a very narrow view of the Public Health Service Act, a 1944 law allowing the CDC to take certain measures to fight the spread of communicable diseases; the language of the statute refers to “sanitation” as a measure that may be required to be undertaken. Judge Mizelle took this to mean that the statute permitted the establishment of rules/regulations “that clean something, not ones that keep something clean” and mandatory masking was not a “sanitation” measure. Judge Mizelle concluded that requiring masking, regardless of infection status, was an overbroad application of the “detention” and “quarantine” protocols allowed by the Act. In other words, requiring masking of travelers who had not been determined to be infected exceeded the authority that Congress intended to be provided by the Public Health Service Act.

Second, Judge Mizelle held that the CDC’s mask mandate violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which sets administrative agencies’ procedures to set policy. Judge Mizelle stated that the CDC didn’t have a valid excuse for bypassing the masking rule’s public notice and comment requirements. The CDC did not provide an adequate explanation for why they implemented the masking requirement in the first place. Judge Mizelle referred to the fact that the pandemic was already a year old when the mandate was put in place; accordingly, the mandate was not put in place under emergency circumstances.

Of note, Judge Mizelle, a President Trump appointee, was rated by the American Bar Association as “not qualified” for appointment to the Federal bench due to lack of experience.  Nonetheless, she was confirmed for life at the age of 33.

How does this ruling affect travel?

Judge Mizelle’s ruling put the authority to enact and enforce masking mandates back with individual airlines, ride-share companies, and other modes of public transportation.  

Because of the ruling, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), a federal agency, ended its enforcement of the mask mandate.

Some jurisdictions like New York and Chicago elected to keep in place mask mandates on public transit, all major airlines, Amtrak, Caltrain, SFMTA, and ride-share companies. Others have chosen to drop their mask mandates and instead recommend the use of masks while riding public transportation.  

There are no longer any uniform rules surrounding masking on public transportation. It is best to have a mask should you be required to wear one.

How does one judge have the power to end the mandate?

Judge Mizelle struck down the mandate in a “nationwide” injunction (a national court order requiring an action or halting an action). However, she referred to her ruling as vacatur (eliminating an unlawful rule).  The judge’s reasoning for her broad elimination of the mask mandate was that it would be too difficult to apply the injunction only to those that brought the lawsuit in the first place. A nationwide injunction applies to all jurisdictions everywhere within the United States.   

The judge’s decision does not carry precedential weight. Other federal courts across the country are not obligated to follow her reasoning in handling similar future challenges to administrative regulations. However, if the ruling is appealed and upheld by the federal appellate court (which covers the Southeastern United States), it would set precedent for all other federal courts within the circuit. If the appeal reached the United States Supreme Court, a ruling upholding Judge Mizelle’s order would be binding nationwide. 

What will happen now that the decision has been appealed?

On April 21, 2022, the Biden Administration asked the Department of Justice to file an appeal in the case. The appeal, if successful, would make clear that the CDC holds the power to make broad mandates in the interest of safeguarding public health. If unsuccessful, the opposite is true—a ruling that would hamper the authority of the CDC to act to protect the people from new and/or evolving public health threats.

State and local government would still maintain authority to issue rules and regulations to protect public health. However, regulations across the country would be inconsistent and piecemeal—arguably this lack of uniformity allowed the COVID-19 pandemic to claim so many US lives in the first year of the pandemic.

***

The COVID-19 (Coronavirus) outbreak is an ongoing, rapidly developing situation, and the local, state, and federal responses are regularly changing. The Dolan Law Firm makes efforts to keep the information on this page updated. However, it is necessary to confirm with publicly available federal, state, and local health organization guidance and government mandates to guarantee up-to-date information.

 

read more

Our Rights to an Interpreter

Written By Christopher Dolan and Carole Okolowicz

This week’s question comes from an anonymous writer who asks: If you are charged with a crime in California and do not understand English, you have a right to an interpreter in court. (Cal Const Art 1, Sec 14.) If you have an attorney, they may provide an interpreter; the court will provide one if you do not have an attorney. But, do you have a right to an interpreter in a non-criminal situation? For example, if a car hits and injures you, or your employer wrongfully fired you, and you have to file a lawsuit, do you have a right to an interpreter?

Dear Anonymous,

Let’s start at the beginning. One of the first decisions you make when you are injured or mistreated is whether to hire an attorney and which attorney to hire. Many California lawyers and law firm staff note if they speak languages other than English on their website. If you are unsure if the attorneys speak another language other than English, when contacting an attorney, you may want to ask a family member or friend to translate for you. 

Next, during litigation, you may have to appear for a deposition as your case proceeds. A deposition is a question-and-answer session which does not happen in court but, you are still sworn in to tell the truth. You have a right to have an interpreter during your deposition, and your attorney will hire one for you. During your deposition, the lawyer for the other side asks you questions, you respond, and a court reporter types everything said, creating a record.

Last, it is very likely that you will never have to appear in court in your civil case. Most cases settle without ever going to trial. But if your case does go to trial, an interpreter must be provided for you. An interpreter must be provided for any witness “who is incapable of understanding the English language or is incapable of expressing himself or herself in the English language” in a way that can be understood by the attorneys, the court, and the jury. (Evid. Code 752(a).) This is a rule of evidence, meaning that if the witness cannot understand the questions and if the court cannot understand her answers, the witness’s testimony is not useful evidence – unless there is an interpreter. 

Unlike in criminal court, a civil court will not pay for the interpreter if one is needed. (Evid Code 752(b)(2).) The cost of the interpreter is a cost of the lawsuit, just like the cost to file papers with the court and costs associated with depositions, for example. The party that loses the trial, could be you or the other side, may pay the costs. Or, you could pay it if you decide to settle out of court. You may decide it is worth it to settle for various reasons.

It is ultimately up to the court. The court may determine whether or not an interpreter is needed. Suppose you or anyone testifying in court appears to speak and understand the English language well enough to be understood. In that case, the court may determine that no interpreter is needed. However, your lawyers may decide to hire an interpreter regardless of the court’s determination. They want you to be able to provide your best testimony and fully understand what the court asks of you.

Because California is such a diverse state, there are interpreters for many different languages and dialects, including Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, Tagalog, Hindi, Farsi, Portuguese, even some indigenous languages. Your inability to fully understand the English language should not be a barrier to getting legal representation when you have been wronged.

read more

Implementing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I) Initiatives Within Law Firms and Corporations

Written By Christopher B. Dolan, Mari Bandoma Callado, and Katelyn P. Dembowski 

This week’s question comes from Skyler from San Francisco who asks: There is a lot of talk going on right now about diversity, equity, and inclusion within corporations. Is your firm doing anything to foster diversity yourselves? If so, what can others do to follow your lead? 

Thanks for your question, Skyler. In the winter of 2020, senior associate attorney Mari Bandoma Callado approached Dolan Law Firm Founder and Chief Legal Officer Chris Dolan about starting a Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DE&I) Committee. This was right after the peak of the Black Lives Matter movement in the summer of 2020. Mr. Dolan was immediately on board with her vision. It was an easy transition because our firm has always been supportive of attorneys being involved in DE&I initiatives outside the firm, including but not limited to, sponsoring diverse bar association fundraising efforts, encouraging attorneys to take leadership roles and/or volunteering at community organizations and events. The firm was also very supportive of attorneys with children and has allowed a more flexible schedule for new parents.  

However, every organization or law firm is different. There is no “one size fits all approach” to starting a Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee or implementing DE&I initiatives. This article will discuss information on the importance of DE&I and provide tools on how to establish a DE&I committee or initiative as well as reflect on the success and challenges of the Dolan Law Firm’s efforts.

What is Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DE&I)

Diversity is expressed in different forms including visible and invisible diversity: race, ethnicity, gender and gender identity, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, language, culture, religious commitments, and (dis)ability status.

However, diversity without “Inclusion” is exclusion.  Most lump diversity and inclusion together but they are actually two different things and having diversity does not necessarily translate to inclusion.  Inclusion is diversity in action.  It’s about creating an environment that understands, accepts, and values the differences between people – and not just different backgrounds but different ideas, experiences, and perspectives.

Equity or the experience of fairness is about ensuring that all people have equal opportunities, and that bias, harassment, and discrimination are not tolerated.  It involves an understanding that not everyone’s path is the same and eliminating the barriers that prevent the full participation of some groups.

Developing a DE&I Strategic Plan

We recommend collaborating with stakeholders and supporters in developing a DE&I strategic plan based on the firm-wide assessment you conduct. It was important for us to take our time in scaling the program and working as a group to build a shared vision and determine our goals.  This included extensive discussions within the committee (which included heads of human resources and marketing) and encouraged participation from everyone at the firm by inviting all staff to monthly planning meetings.

The Dolan Law Firm Committee drafted a mission statement and objectives as a group:

Mission Statement: In order to deliver equal justice for all, the Dolan Law Firm is committed to advancing and nurturing a diverse, equal, and inclusive workplace that reflects the communities we serve.

Implementing DE&I Initiatives

Implement a structure to facilitate your plan. Through our monthly meetings (which were held virtually during the pandemic), we were able to delegate tasks and coordinate the programming and activities to fulfill our objectives related to retention, recruitment, and community outreach.

  1. Retention

A key component is including an activity or discussion that allowed us to get to know each other better and for employees to be better understand their own experiences and even their own biases.  The Committee came up with group activities depending on the presentations we were doing that month, things that were happening at the firm, and/or current events.  Sample group activities include:

  • Discussion regarding the use of pronouns;
  • “Land Acknowledgement” presentation;
  • Activity on overcoming imposter syndrome;
  • “Wall of Appreciation” which allowed members of the committee to anonymously tell each other things they appreciated about their colleagues;
  • Activity on identity and diversity – “How Does the World See You?”;
  • Discussion on “What is your superpower?”; and
  • Check-in on the highlight of your week.

During the first year, we focused on developing DE&I presentations and activities created by our committee members to fulfill the retention objective of our mission statement.  Sample presentations include:

  • Black History Month presentation on the Unsung S/heroes of the Civil Rights Movement 
  • Women’s History Month Presentation on Intersectionality 
  • Anti-AAPI Hate Presentation + Bystander Intervention Training
  • Celebrating Diversity Month – Presentation on Implicit Bias 
  • Celebrating Pride Month – Pride Month Presentation 
  • Anti-Semitism in Progressive Spaces Presentation 
  • Latinx/Hispanic Heritage Month Presentation 

  1. Recruitment

It is important for the Committee to be part of recruitment efforts. We have a representative at each attorney and/or staff interview who shared the firm’s commitment to DE&I and to ask questions to gauge the candidate’s interest and/or commitment to DE&I.  We also added the mission statement/commitment to DE&I in job postings. The committee continues to collaborate with Human Resources in developing and implementing the DE&I talent acquisition strategy. 

  1. Marketing and Community Outreach

A DE&I representative is part of the marketing team and assists with ensuring that the firm continues to be connected to the community that we aim to serve.  The Committee regularly creates content for the firm’s website and social media accounts that highlights the diversity of our team, issue statements that reflect the commitments and values of the firm, and regularly spotlight our team members who are doing incredible things for the community through their leadership roles and volunteer work.

Additionally, the firm is committed to supporting organizations that share the same commitment to DE&I. The firm is a long-time supporter and sponsor of various organizations such as the CAOC Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee, the Bay Area Lawyers for Individual Freedom (BALIF), Filipino Bar Association of Northern California (FBANC), East Bay La Raza, and just recently became a sustaining law firm member of the Charles Houston Bar Association.  

We hope you found this information useful and if you know any firms or organizations looking to implement more DE&I measures, please do not hesitate to reach out to us. 

read more

New California Law Requires Public Schools and Colleges to Carry Free Menstrual Products

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Katelyn P. Dembowski 

Tess from Oakland asks: I saw on the news that California will now require public schools to carry menstrual products. Can you explain how they will implement this and when this will be available for students?

Dear Tess: Thank you for your question. This is incredible news in the advancement of safety and security for all those who menstruate. 

On October 8, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB-367, requiring California public schools and colleges to stock their restrooms with free menstrual products. The Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021 (AB-367) builds off of a 2017 California law which required low-income schools in disadvantaged areas to provide students with free menstrual products. Specifically, the 2017 law required public schools from grade 6 through grade 12, that met a 40% pupil poverty threshold, to stock 50% of their restrooms with feminine hygiene products. The 2017 bill also prohibited the public schools from charging students for the menstrual products.

The Menstrual Equity for All Act of 2021 requires public schools with grades 6 through 12 to stock all school restrooms with an adequate and free supply of menstrual products in the women’s and all-gender restrooms, and at least in one men’s restroom. Schools are required to implement this for the upcoming 2022-2023 academic school year. 

Additionally, the Menstrual Equity for All Act encompasses not only public middle and high schools, but all California State Universities and the community college districts within the state to implement this policy as well. The law also encourages, but does not require, the Regents of the University of California and private universities, colleges, and institutions of higher learning to also stock adequate supplies for all menstruating pupils. 

Assemblywoman, Cristina Garcia, led the charge by introducing this life-changing legislation. “Our biology doesn’t always send an advanced warning when we’re about to start menstruating, which often means we need to stop whatever we’re doing and deal with a period,” she stated regarding the new legislation.” Just as toilet paper and paper towels are provided in virtually every public bathroom, so should menstrual products.” 

Garcia, who crowned herself the “Period Princess,” gained inspiration for The Menstrual Equity for All Act from a 2020 bill passed in Scotland. Scotland became the first country to make period products available to anyone who needs them in all public places. The Scottish Parliament unanimously passed the bill, which is estimated to cost the country approximately $32 million annually. Worldwide, countries like Britain, Australia, Canada, and India have eliminated taxes on menstrual products and many are working towards having free products available in public places as well.  

Unfortunately, access to free and sanitary menstrual products in public spaces is not the norm. According to Women’s Voices for the Earth, more than half the states still tax menstrual products as a “luxury” item. When Women’s Voices for the Earth began tracking menstrual health policies in January 2021, there were only about 20 bills across the United States. As of November 2021, there are now more than 140 bills in 37 states, including 8 bills introduced on the federal level, to advance menstrual equity by requiring free access to period products, eliminating tax, and requiring ingredient disclosures. 

The Menstrual Equity for All Act is the latest step in California toward “menstrual equity” in the nation’s most populous state. California has a history of implementing laws that are later echoed in other states, and we can only hope that states will follow suit and continue to push for menstrual equity for all persons who menstruate. This year, California also eliminated a tax on menstrual products, which used to cost Californian’s more than $20 million annually. 

It is extremely difficult to have access to safe and sanitary menstrual products for low-income individuals around the world. Over 1.8 billion people around the world menstruate. For millions, stigma, taboo, and a lack of access to sanitary products stop them from participating in work, school, and daily life during their periods. A study conducted earlier this year found that 1 in 4 teens who menstruate said they struggle to afford period products. 

Period poverty causes many people to miss out on life and daily activities many of us take for granted. We hope this new law will help many people who menstruate feel more secure when their period comes along, and safer knowing they will have access to sanitary menstruating products.

read more

Latina Equal Pay Day | October 2021

By the Dolan Law Firm DEI Committee

Latina Equal Pay Day raises awareness about the wage gap and its impact on Latinx women and their families. It is recognized on October 21, 2021, because it is the day when Latina pay catches up to that of white, non-Hispanic men from the previous year. Today, Latinas typically earn only 57 cents for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men and must work nearly 23 months to earn what white men earn in 12 months.  #LatinaEqualPay

Learn more at the 2021 Latina Equal Pay Day & Essential Women Worker Summit happening today at 10 a.m. The Summit will feature worker action sessions, surveys and story collection, and policy/organizing strategy discussions.

In California, several laws and regulations attempt to bridge the pay gap such as California Equal Pay Act (Labor Code section 1197.5) which prohibits an employer from paying its employees less than employees of the opposite sex, or of another race, or of another ethnicity for substantially-similar work.In addition, employers are prohibited from using prior salary to justify any sex-, race-, or ethnicity-based pay difference. Additionally, Labor Code Section 432.3, prohibits employers from asking job applicants about their salary history information, including compensation and benefits. 

If you believe that you are being treated differently because of your race and/or gender, contact the Dolan Law Firm’s team of employment attorneys.

read more

Black Women’s Equal Pay Day

By Mari Bandoma Callado, Dolan Law Firm Senior Associate Attorney and Director, Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

Black Women’s Equal Pay Day is August 3 because it takes an additional 214 days for Black women to catch up to what white, non-Hispanic men made in 12 months.  

Black women are typically paid only 63 cents for every dollar paid to white men. The pay discrimination can follow someone from job to job and actually compounds over time. According to the National Women’s Law Center, the wage gap adds up to a typical loss of $24,110 a year and nearly $1 million over a 40-year career. 

In California, several laws and regulations attempt to bridge the pay gap such as California Equal Pay Act (Labor Code section 1197.5) which prohibits an employer from paying its employees less than employees of the opposite sex, or of another race, or of another ethnicity for substantially-similar work.In addition, employers are prohibited from using prior salary to justify any sex-, race-, or ethnicity-based pay difference. Additionally, Labor Code Section 432.3, prohibits employers from asking job applicants about their salary history information, including compensation and benefits. 

If you believe that you are being treated differently because of your race and/or gender, contact the Dolan Law Firm’s team of employment attorneys.

 

read more

Don’t Mess with California – Supreme Court Tells Texas to Sit Down

Written By Christopher B. Dolan and Jeremy M. Jessup

Jordan from Emeryville wrote in to ask: I recently read a tweet by the Human Rights Campaign that basically said there were more than 250 anti-LGBTQ+ bills moving through legislation nationwide. And that over 125 of those bills were targeting the transgender community and that eight could become law at any moment. As sad as this is, I was hoping there were some bright spots out there, are there?  

Dear H. Jordan: Unfortunately, as Pride month approaches, several states have introduced legislation related to LGBTQ+ discrimination. Some legislation will try to remove anti-discrimination laws that LGBTQ+ people really need, while others will single out and target LGBTQ+ people for unfair and unequal treatment. The burning question is what can be done to try and stop, or at the very least, limit the effects of these discriminatory laws that have been promoted under the guise of “religious liberty.”

Believe it or not, the State of California has crossed state lines in an attempt to curtail such legislation, by barring state-funded travel to states deemed to be attempting to limit the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. The measure (which has now expanded to 12 states) prevents California agencies, public universities and boards from funding work-related trips to Texas (and now other states) who have laws that are deemed discriminatory. This measure was enacted after the Texas Legislature moved to allow foster care agencies to use religious liberties as a reason to deny same-sex couples the right to foster children. At the time, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the law, “allows foster care agencies to discriminate against children in foster care and potentially disqualify LGBT families from the state’s foster and adoption system,” and that, “[d]iscriminatory laws in any part of our country send all of us several steps back. That’s why when California said we would not tolerate discrimination against LGBTQ members of our community, we meant it.” 

In response, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued the State of California in 2017 claiming that the measure violated the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause by discriminating against interstate commerce and called the California law an effort, “to punish Texans for respecting the right of conscience for foster care and adoption providers.” According to a brief filed, “California’s travel ban is an affront to the sovereignty of Texas — as well as the ten other States that California has blacklisted.” The brief also argued that the California ban shows “religious animus” toward Texas. 

The lawsuit, which was filed directly at the U.S. Supreme Court level (which is allowed when there are disputes between states) was supported by 19 states, who wrote briefs in support of the stance taken by Texas. Despite the prior administration’s urging to have this case heard, in a 7-2 decision and without explanation, the U.S. Supreme Court turned the case away and denied the state of Texas’ request to file a complaint. This means that California may continue with their ban. This refusal to accept the complaint is significant, given that the potential conflict between gay rights and religious freedom has become a central theme at the nation’s highest court, which now has an ostensible 6-3 conservative majority.

However, the State of California is not the only one fighting back against anti-LGBTQ+ legislation; according to the Texas Tribune, business leaders in Texas have cautioned the State that these laws could be harmful to both Texans and to the state’s economy, which is still recovering from the recession that accompanied the pandemic. Recently, members of the business group Texas Competes (made up of over 1,400 Texas employers, business and tourism groups and backed by big tech companies like Hewlett Packard) identified numerous bills that they say will infringe on LGBTQ+’s rights, “tarnish Texas’s welcoming brand,” and hurt local businesses including the tourist industry.

“Businesses big and small and economies thrive on certainty,” says Jessica Shortall, the managing director of Texas Competes. “What we’re faced with again this year is the uncertainty of whether discriminatory policies will rear their heads and cause all of the problems you’ve heard from our business speakers.”

According to the Human Rights Campaign, more than 90 major U.S. corporations have spoken out in opposition to anti-transgender legislation being proposed in states across the country. Some of the more concerning bills deal with both youth and collegiate sports. One bill, which has already passed at one level, would prevent public school athletes from participating in school sports unless their team designation was inline with their sex assigned at birth. Texas is also attempting to pass a similar mandate for colleges and universities. 

However, the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) Board of Governors released a public letter stating that it, “firmly and unequivocally supports the opportunity for transgender student-athletes to compete in college sports.” Moreover, “When determining where championships are held, NCAA policy directs that only locations where hosts can commit to providing an environment that is safe, healthy and free of discrimination should be selected.” Currently, Texas is scheduled to host several events, including the 2023 Women’s Final Four in Dallas and the 2024 College Football Playoff National Championship game set for Houston. If the NCAA were to deem Texas one of those states, Texas would stand to lose out on nearly $1 billion dollars in economic benefits. This warning by the NCAA puts not just Texas, but another 29 states on notice that if they elect to move forward with discriminatory legislation, the NCAA will act.

The steps being taken are not perfect and will not stop all of the anti-transgender legislation in the works (Tennessee Governor Lee has signed similar bills, one as recently as last month, which Nashville’s top prosecutor said recently he will not enforce.) As long as there are people and entities willing to stand up, there will always be bright spots. It should be noted that as this article was waiting to be published, Democrats in the Texas legislature have killed a bill that would have required transgender athletes to compete on sports teams corresponding to their gender assigned at birth.

read more