Calif. high court upholds affirmative action ban
Court Alerts
California's high court on Monday upheld the state's 14-year-old law barring preferential treatment of women and minorities in public school admissions, government hiring and contracting.
In a 6-1 ruling, the state Supreme Court rejected arguments from the city of San Francisco and Attorney General Jerry Brown that the law, known as Proposition 209, violates federal equality protections.
Opponents of the ban say it creates barriers for minorities and women that don't exist for other groups, such as veterans seeking preference.
The ruling written by Justice Kathryn Werdegar came in response to lawsuits filed by white contractors challenging San Francisco's affirmative action program, which was suspended in 2003.
"As the court recognized, Proposition 209 is a civil rights measure that protects everyone, regardless of background," said Sharon Browne, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the contractors. "Under Proposition 209, no one can be victimized by unfair government policies that discriminate or grant preferences based on sex or skin color."
If San Francisco wants to resurrect the program, the Supreme Court said it must show compelling evidence the city "purposefully or intentionally discriminated against" minority and women contractors and that such a law was the only way to fix the problem.
Related listings
-
US appeals court: Pa. prison can ban Muslim scarf
Court Alerts 08/03/2010Prison officials can ban employees from wearing religious headscarves out of concerns they pose a safety risk, a U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia ruled Monday in a split 2-1 decision.Prison officials have legitimate concerns the headscarves can hid...
-
Jury questioning begins in Anna Nicole Smith case
Court Alerts 08/02/2010Jury questioning is slated to begin Monday in Los Angeles in the drug conspiracy trial of Anna Nicole Smith's doctors and her lawyer-boyfriend.Superior Court Judge Robert Perry says questionnaires filled out by prospective jurors show most of them kn...
-
2 re-sentencings ordered in $1.9B Ohio fraud case
Court Alerts 07/29/2010A federal appeals court has ordered two executives convicted in a $1.9 billion corporate fraud case to be resentenced.The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said Wednesday the government hadn't proved Donald Ayers and Roger Faulkenberry ...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.