archive-us.com » US » K » KBLEGAL.US

Total: 188

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Proposed Legislation Regarding Classified Employee Layoffs | Kingsley Bogard | Attorneys | Folsom, CA |
    Employee Layoffs Wednesday May 2 2012 kblegal Assembly Bill 1908 was introduced into the legislative process on February 22 2012 AB 1908 seeks amendments to Education Code sections 45117 and 88017 to increase from 45 days to 60 days the layoff notice requirement for classified school employees working in California s public school and community college districts This bill was passed by the Assembly on April 26 2012 and currently resides with the Senate Committee on Education If AB 1908 is passed by the Senate before September 1 2012 and approved by the Governor it will become effective January 1 2013 As a result any classified layoffs implemented in 2013 and thereafter may be affected Contact our office with questions Kingsley Bogard LLP 50 Iron Point Circle Suite 110 Folsom CA 95630 916 932 2500 phone 916 932 2510 fax admin kblegal us Return to Blog Home Page Post navigation Next Previous Article List by Title Recent PERB Cases May Expand Right to Union Representation in Meetings Emergency Changes to Healthy Workplace Healthy Families Act Add Flexibility to Accrual of Paid Sick Leave Governor signed SB 277 which eliminates the personal belief exemption from student immunization requirements SB 272 Local Agency Data Inventory Department of Education Changes Maintenance of Effort Regulations Governing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Proposed Law Adds Clarification and Teeth to Illegal Pupil Fees Complaint Procedure Attorney Billing Statements Exempt from PRA Disclosure Trial Court Finds School Districts May Not Charge for Copies Made to Redact Exempt Information from PRA Request SB 1405 Schools Must Report Some Pesticide Use to Department of Pesticide Regulation Develop Integrated Pest Management Plan California Family Rights Act CFRA and Family Medical Leave Act FMLA AB 420 Willful Defiance AB 1442 School Districts Gathering of Social Media Restrained Notice Required Districts

    Original URL path: http://kblegal.us/proposed-legislation-regarding-classified-employee-layoffs/?pfstyle=wp (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Blog | Kingsley Bogard | Attorneys | Folsom, CA - Part 11
    of an entire jurisdiction elect candidates to Read More E mail Print PDF One to One Credential Match May be Required for Certificated Categorical Back Fill Temporary Employees Tuesday March 6 2012 Following the California Court of Appeal s holding in Santa Barbara Federation of Teachers v Santa Barbara High School District 1977 California school districts have commonly engaged in a practical manner of counting temporary employee entitlements Total regular FTE on leave Total regular FTE assigned to categorically funded assignments Total FTE available to be filled by Read More E mail Print PDF Federal Law Broadens Accommodations for Lactating Employees Thursday January 12 2012 Federal law requires employers to accommodate lactating employees as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act an amendment to Section 7 r of the Fair Labor Standards Act The law requires employers to Provide a reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for one 1 year after Read More Posts navigation Older posts Newer posts More Articles Proposed Legislation Regarding Classified Employee Layoffs California Voting Rights Act Are Categorically Funded Certificated Hires Temporary Employees One to One Credential Match May be Required for Certificated Categorical Back Fill Temporary Employees Federal Law Broadens Accommodations for Lactating Employees Governor Vetoes Legislation Which Would Have Required Reimbursement for Impermissible Student Fees AB 165 Non Medical School Employees May Administer Antiseizure Medication SB 931 EERA Legal Advisor Prohibition Governor Indicates Layoffs are Still Okay After AB 114 State Budget Acts of 2011 and AB 114 Annual Parent Notices Are You in Compliance Classified Employees in Non Merit System Districts Who are Laid Off Must Serve a Probationary Period if They are Re Employed by the District in a Different Position Redevelopment Agencies Add Further Strain to District Budgets Keeping Options

    Original URL path: http://kblegal.us/blog/page/11/ (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Are Categorically Funded Certificated Hires Temporary Employees? | Kingsley Bogard | Attorneys | Folsom, CA |
    employees challenged their classifications under Section 44909 and their release under Section 44954 The Administrative Law Judge held that such employees were properly classified as temporary under Section 44909 and properly released under Section 44954 However in its opinion dated March 1 2012 the California Court of Appeals disagreed The Court of Appeal found that the employees were not temporary because there was no evidence that the categorical programs were expiring Thus the employees were probationary and were entitled to seniority tenure termination and reappointment in accordance with statutes applicable to regular probationary and permanent employees The Court set forth the following clarifying rules for employees hired directly into categorically funded programs The temporary classification under Section 44909 first paragraph is available only when all of the following elements are present and provable The employee was hired to perform a particular service funded under a particular contract with a public or private agency or a particular categorically funded project not required by state or federal statutes and The employee was hired for the term of the contract or project A school district may not hire a person for more or less than the term of the contract or project and treat such a person as a temporary employee If an employee is hired under a contract or a categorically funded project for a term that is more or less than the term of the contract or project then the employee is not temporary Any such employee is a regular probationary employee upon hire and has accrued seniority and tenure accordingly Conclusions Based on the holding in Stockton an employee whose temporary classification is based on being hired into a categorically funded position is a regular employee IF that employee was terminated prior to the end of the categorically funded program The same is true if the employee was hired for a term that is not coextensive with the contract or project As a result if a school district is running a certificated layoff and or a simultaneous temporary probationary zero release it must reassess any employees classified as temporary or probationary 0 based upon their hire under a contract or a categorically funded project in light of Stockton It is advisable to consult legal counsel prior to March 15 to prepare for the circumstance that such employees will be considered regular probationary or permanent employees dependent upon their length of service One important caveat This holding does not apply to employees hired as temporary under the back fill provision of Section 44909 Put another way this case does not apply to employees hired to backfill for regular employees in categorically funded positions i e the second paragraph of 44909 Rather it is limited to employees that are initially classified as temporary based upon employment in categorically funded positions i e the first paragraph of 44909 The holding in Stockton provides some timely or ill timed and new legal analysis on the classification of temporary employees It will certainly be raised

    Original URL path: http://kblegal.us/are-categorically-funded-certificated-hires-temporary-employees/?pfstyle=wp (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • California Voting Rights Act | Kingsley Bogard | Attorneys | Folsom, CA |
    preliminary injunction In December 2008 the County Committee approved the District s proposal to establish trustee areas and convert to a by trustee area method of election In December 2008 LCCR filed a motion to recover more than 1 million in attorney fees and costs from the District and the County Committee Holding County Committee Not Liable Under the CVRA The court acknowledged that under Education Code 5019 the County Committee among others has the authority to initiate changes to the District s election method However the court found that the County Committee s failure to exercise its authority did not rise to the level of imposing or applying the election method as prohibited by the CVRA The court held that in this instance the County Committee was not liable under the CVRA based on the following factors The County Committee did not impose or apply the District s at large voting method The County Committee had no affirmative duty to ensure that the District complied with the CVRA The County Committee was not placed on notice of LCCR s demand prior to the filing of the legal complaint and The County Committee did not oppose the preliminary injunction Holding 1 8 Million in Attorney Fees and Costs Not Reasonable LCCR requested attorney fees totaling approximately 1 7 million plus 100 000 in costs The alleged basis for those fees included more than 3 000 hours of legal work billed at rates ranging from 295 per hour to 760 per hour The trial court held that LCCR was entitled to reasonable fees and costs because it was the prevailing party However the court found the hours and the rates to be patently unreasonable Accordingly the court reduced the attorney fees award to a reasonable amount which it determined to be 162 500 The court made this determination based primarily on three findings The billing rates were excessive The court found that 325 per hour was the reasonable rate in the Central Valley for legal services The hours billed in pursuit of the County Committee were not subject to an award of attorney fees because the plaintiff did not prevail over the County Committee and The number of hours was otherwise excessive The court found that 500 hours was a reasonable number to accomplish the desired outcome in the case at hand Conclusion The County Committee liability holding provides some clarity on liability under the CVRA On its face the holding appears to exclude the County Committee on School District Organization from liability A closer reading however reveals that the court stops short of a wholesale exclusion and leaves open the possibility that a County Committee may be liable if either of the following circumstances exist The County Committee receives a letter demanding requesting that it take action or The County Committee takes a legal position to oppose allegations that a school district within its jurisdiction is in violation of the CVRA The Attorney Fees holding makes clear that awards for

    Original URL path: http://kblegal.us/california-voting-rights-act/?pfstyle=wp (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • "One-to-One Credential Match May be Required for Certificated Categorical Back-Fill Temporary Employees" | Kingsley Bogard | Attorneys | Folsom, CA |
    particular regular employee assigned to a categorically funded program Rather temporary entitlements have been counted in the aggregate A recent certificated layoff decision has called this common practice into question as applied to temporary entitlements created by regular employees assigned to categorically funded assignments under Education Code 44909 In the opinion Administrative Law Judge Jonathan Lew opined that Section 44909 s temporary entitlement language is more restrictive than Section 44920 which was specifically at issue in Santa Barbara Thus Judge Lew stated that Section 44909 may require a greater showing than that required by Section 44920 What exactly that showing must be is unclear but Judge Lew s opinion suggests two 2 possibilities A credential match between the temporary employee and the regular employee in the categorically funded assignment or A hypothetical scenario where a series of potential reassignments creates an opening that may taught with a credential held by the temporary employee Either of these possibilities may create a host of practical problems including those problems identified in the Santa Barbara case While Judge Lew s opinion is not binding it is worth consideration as school districts plan for and document certificated staffing and potential certificated layoffs in the 2011 2012 school year Please contact Kim Kingsley Bogard or Paul Gant with questions on this topic Kingsley Bogard LLP 50 Iron Point Circle Suite 110 Folsom CA 95630 916 932 2500 phone 916 932 2510 fax admin kblegal us Return to Blog Home Page Post navigation Next Previous Article List by Title Recent PERB Cases May Expand Right to Union Representation in Meetings Emergency Changes to Healthy Workplace Healthy Families Act Add Flexibility to Accrual of Paid Sick Leave Governor signed SB 277 which eliminates the personal belief exemption from student immunization requirements SB 272 Local Agency Data Inventory

    Original URL path: http://kblegal.us/one-to-one-credential-match-may-be-required-for-certificated-categorical-back-fill-temporary-employees/?pfstyle=wp (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Federal Law Broadens Accommodations for Lactating Employees | Kingsley Bogard | Attorneys | Folsom, CA |
    Code requires that employers including public entities must Provide a reasonable amount of break time to accommodate an employee desiring to express breast milk for the employee s infant child This break time shall if possible run concurrently with any break time provided to the employee Provide an employee with a private area to express milk that follows the federal requirements but is also in close proximity to the employee s work area Allow the lactation accommodation for the entire length of time required by the employee In other words do not limit the accommodation to the one 1 year after the birth of the child Allow the employee a break at any time she needs to express milk The only breaks that must be paid are those to which the employee is otherwise entitled Make reasonable efforts to provide the employee with a room or other location to express breast milk which Is private Is not a toilet stall and Is in close proximity to the employee s work area An employer is not required to provide this break time if to do so would seriously disrupt the operations of the employer A comparison of the two statutes follows Federal Law Must provide a reasonable break time to express milk Must provide a break each time there is a need to express milk Breaks need not be paid Limited to first year after birth of child Employers with less than 50 employees may be exempt from the statute if the requirements cause an undue hardship If more than 50 employees must provide private area to express milk If less than 50 employees must provide a private area to express milk unless there is an undue hardship Private area cannot be a bathroom California Law Must provide a reasonable break time to express milk Breaks to express milk should where possible run concurrently with regular break times Additional break times need not be paid No limit on time for accommodation Employers of any size may be exempt from the break time requirement if the break time would seriously disrupt operations Employers need only make reasonable efforts to provide the employee with a private area to express milk Private area can be in a bathroom but not a toilet stall In order to comply with the most protective requirements employers should Provide an employee with a private area to express milk that follows the federal requirements but is also in close proximity to the employee s work area Allow the lactation accommodation for the entire length of time required by the employee In other words do not limit the accommodation to the one 1 year after the birth of the child Allow the employee a break at any time she needs to express milk The only breaks that must be paid are those to which the employee is otherwise entitled If you believe one of the exceptions applies you are encouraged to consult legal counsel This update is informational and not

    Original URL path: http://kblegal.us/federal-law-broadens-accommodations-for-lactating-employees/?pfstyle=wp (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Blog | Kingsley Bogard | Attorneys | Folsom, CA - Part 12
    Code Section 49414 7 is summarized as follows A The parent of a pupil who has Read More E mail Print PDF SB 931 EERA Legal Advisor Prohibition Tuesday August 23 2011 During the 2011 2012 session an amendment to the Educational Employment Relations Act has been under consideration If passed Senate Bill 931 would prohibit public agencies from using public funds to pay external consultants or legal advisors to counsel the employer on how to minimize or deter the exercise of rights under the EERA Opponents speculate Read More E mail Print PDF Governor Indicates Layoffs are Still Okay After AB 114 Friday July 8 2011 As a follow up to our Client Update on AB 114 we have attached a copy of the Governor s letter on AB 114 It provides substantial support that school districts retain authority to engage in prudent fiscal management for the 2011 2012 fiscal year despite the AB 114 language to maintain staffing and program levels In Read More Posts navigation Older posts Newer posts More Articles Proposed Legislation Regarding Classified Employee Layoffs California Voting Rights Act Are Categorically Funded Certificated Hires Temporary Employees One to One Credential Match May be Required for Certificated Categorical Back Fill Temporary Employees Federal Law Broadens Accommodations for Lactating Employees Governor Vetoes Legislation Which Would Have Required Reimbursement for Impermissible Student Fees AB 165 Non Medical School Employees May Administer Antiseizure Medication SB 931 EERA Legal Advisor Prohibition Governor Indicates Layoffs are Still Okay After AB 114 State Budget Acts of 2011 and AB 114 Annual Parent Notices Are You in Compliance Classified Employees in Non Merit System Districts Who are Laid Off Must Serve a Probationary Period if They are Re Employed by the District in a Different Position Redevelopment Agencies Add Further Strain to District

    Original URL path: http://kblegal.us/blog/page/12/ (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Governor Vetoes Legislation Which Would Have Required Reimbursement for Impermissible Student Fees (AB 165) | Kingsley Bogard | Attorneys | Folsom, CA |
    for student fees charged in violation of the free school guarantee in the California Constitution The bill was the result of a settlement agreement reached in a suit filed by the ACLU against various state agencies The suit alleged that school districts state wide were being allowed to charge unlawful school fees Governor Brown vetoed the bill on Saturday October 8 2011 While the veto disposes of AB 165 the free school guarantee remains intact Many provisions in the bill including those which prohibited pupil fees were declarative of existing law School districts and county offices of education remain prohibited from charging fees in violation of the free school guarantee As a general rule only fees specifically authorized by law may be charged Accordingly parents and students who can show they were charged unlawful fees may be able to get reimbursement notwithstanding the veto of the bill Kinglsey Bogard can provide advice and guidance regarding specific student fee issues Kingsley Bogard LLP 50 Iron Point Circle Suite 110 Folsom CA 95630 916 932 2500 phone 916 932 2510 fax admin kblegal us Return to Blog Home Page Post navigation Next Previous Article List by Title Recent PERB Cases May Expand Right to Union Representation in Meetings Emergency Changes to Healthy Workplace Healthy Families Act Add Flexibility to Accrual of Paid Sick Leave Governor signed SB 277 which eliminates the personal belief exemption from student immunization requirements SB 272 Local Agency Data Inventory Department of Education Changes Maintenance of Effort Regulations Governing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Proposed Law Adds Clarification and Teeth to Illegal Pupil Fees Complaint Procedure Attorney Billing Statements Exempt from PRA Disclosure Trial Court Finds School Districts May Not Charge for Copies Made to Redact Exempt Information from PRA Request SB 1405 Schools Must Report Some

    Original URL path: http://kblegal.us/governor-vetoes-legislation-which-would-have-required-reimbursement-for-impermissible-student-fees-ab-165/?pfstyle=wp (2016-02-17)
    Open archived version from archive