Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 26:53 — 37.0MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

With texting and social media, it seems as though the line between school and “not school” are blurred. School districts are often faced with determining whether they can discipline a student for their conduct while not at school. In this episode, we discuss a school district’s ability to discipline a student for off-campus conduct and go over court cases that analyze this issue.

Show Notes & References

• 3:10  Tinker Standard
• 6:38  Wynar v. Douglas County. Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2013) 728 F.3d 1062  (http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2182)
• 9:24  C.R. v. Eugene School District 4J (9th Cir. 2016) 835 F.3d 1142 (http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2564)
• 12:50  J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District (PA 2002) 569 Pa 638
• 19:05  J.C. v. Beverly Hills Unified School District, (2010) 711 F.Supp.2d 1094
• 24:24  Shen v. Albany Unified School District (N.D. Cal. 2017) WL 5890089 (http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2720)

For more information on the off-campus discipline issues discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

 

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 23:10 — 31.9MB) | Embed

Subscribe: Spotify | Email | TuneIn | RSS | More

This podcast addresses the tension between protecting personal information and the obligation to disclose public records.  Striking the wrong balance may burden either the local agency, or the individual employee, with significant costs.  Hear how best to contend with the money pitfalls of the CPRA.

Show Notes & References

• 7:17  Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of Pasadena (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 147 (http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2771)
• 8:13  “PAGA” is commonly referred to as the private attorney general statutes, CCP, § 1021.5
• 8:57  National Conference of Black Mayors v. Chico Community Publishing (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 570 (http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2771)
• 12:48  Prop 42 (2014) (http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2263)
• 14:14  Sukumar v. City of San Diego (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 451 (http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2682)
• 15:30  Statutory adoption for municipalities posting to websites – SB 272 (2015) which added Gov. Code, § 6270.5 (http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2451)
• 17:14  City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608 (http://www.lozanosmith.com/news-clientnewsbriefdetail.php?news_id=2616)

Lozano Smith has created a Public Records Act checklist for public agencies, which can be downloaded at our website.

For more information on the California Public Records Act issues discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

 

Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.