In Grutter v. University of Michigan and Gratz v. University of Michigan, Attorney General Lockyer joined 20 other state attorneys general in an amicus brief that urged the United States Supreme Court to hold that the goal of achieving a diverse student body is a compelling state interest that justifies consideration of the race of applicants as one of many factors in determining university admissions. The brief further urged the court to uphold the constitutionality of the University of Michigan's affirmative action policies used for its undergraduate and law school programs. On June 23, 2003, the Court held that achieving a diverse student body is a compelling state interest that justifies the use of race as one of many factors in university admissions policies. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the University of Michigan's law school admissions policy, but found that the undergraduate admissions policy's consideration of race was not sufficiently narrowly drawn. As such, that policy was held to violate the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution.

Civil Rights in Education. In May 2000, the Attorney General entered into a written settlement that will require a school district in northern California to make significant changes to its policies and procedures that govern student discipline. The settlement followed an investigation into allegations that a high school within the district had discriminated against a gifted African American student-athlete when it prohibited him from participating on the high school's football team during his senior year. The investigation concluded that the district may have discriminated against the student because of his race, and that the student's due process rights and his right to privacy had been violated by the high school during the course of the disciplinary process.

Office of Immigrant Assistance: Californians can call toll-free 888-567-0557. Providing education and outreach information to immigrant communities, the Office of Immigrant Assistance was launched within the Civil Right Enforcement Section in March 2001 by Attorney General Lockyer. The goal is to help immigrant communities better understand state laws, and to break down barriers that make immigrants reluctant to report both criminal and civil law violations to law enforcement agencies. To date, the Office of Immigrant Assistance has published the brochure "Immigration Services: Protecting Your Consumer Rights" in English, Spanish, Armenian, Hmong, Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean, as well as the brochure "Preventing Hate Crime: What We Can Do!" in English, Spanish, Armenian, Korean, Chinese, Vietnamese, Arabic, Punjabi and Hindi.

Immigration Consultants. On October 3, 2001, the Civil Rights Enforcement Section, on behalf of Attorney General Lockyer, filed two civil actions to combat immigration consultant fraud. These cases are entitled People ex rel. Bill Lockyer v. Immigration Solution Center ("ISC") and People ex rel. Bill Lockyer v. Immigration World Wide Services, Inc. ("IWWS"). Both complaints seek civil penalties, restitution, injunctive and other relief and allege claims under the Business and Professions Code, including violations of the Immigration Consultants Act, unlawful business practices, and untrue or misleading representations. The Attorney General secured preliminary injunctions in both cases to halt the unlawful practices.

Intellectual Property Rights. In August 2002, the Attorney General filed an amicus brief in DVD Control, Inc. v. Bunner. asking the U.S. Supreme Court to balance the significant governmental interests in protecting trade secrets and combating content piracy with vital First Amendment free speech rights. At issue is the dissemination of movie industry trade secrets via an Internet web site to allow the copying of any DVD movie. The "friend of the court" brief contends that the unique properties of computer code make it "mixed" speech that can be subject to intermediate review to protect trade secrets and prevent content piracy. A state court of appeal had set aside the preliminary injunction issued by a trial court that found the publishing of the de-encryption program was "pure" speech and an impermissible prior restraint under the First Amendment.

Repatriation of Native American Remains. In furtherance of California public policy that promotes repatriation of Native American remains, the Attorney General, on May 26, 1999, filed suit in the San Mateo County Superior Court to authorize the removal of Ishi's remains from the dedicated cemetery where they had been resting. Ishi was believed to be the last of the Yahi Indians. California Native Americans had been seeking to retrieve and reinter the remains of Ishi that were held in the Smithsonian Institution and a cemetery in California. (Lockyer, et al. v. Olivet Memorial Park, et al. (Redding Rancheria and Pit River Tribe, Real Parties and Interest.) On April 12, 2000, the court issued an order authorizing removal of Ishi's remains from the cemetery and into the possession of representatives of two California tribes for appropriate disposition in accordance with Native American traditions.

World War II Slave Labor, Holocaust and Armenian Genocide Claims. Attorney General Lockyer has been involved actively in defending the rights of victims of forced and slave labor during World War II, the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide to pursue claims against businesses that profited from the labor, deaths or injuries of the workers. The Attorney General has filed various "friend of the court" briefs and presented oral arguments in court to defend California laws intended to help these victims.

The California Code of Civil Procedure section 354.6 extends the statute of limitations for claims brought for wages and injuries of persons who were forced to work for companies in Nazi Germany or its allies during World War II. Numerous claims were filed in state and federal court under the law. Many of these claims were consolidated in federal court in the Northern District of California as In Re: World War II Era Japanese Forced Labor Litigation.

The constitutionality of the state law was challenged by several corporations being sued. The Attorney General filed amicus briefs in Kim v. Ishikawajima, et al., defending the validity of the law. In January 2003, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling that invalidated the state law. The Attorney General filed similar amicus briefs last year in two other cases that have reached the California Court of Appeal: Taiheiyo v. Superior Court (formerly Jeong v. Onoda Cement Co. Ltd.) and Mitsubishi v. Superior Court (Dillman). On January 15, 2003, the Court of Appeal in Taiheiyo unanimously upheld the constitutionality of Code of Civil Procedure section 354.6. A decision in the Mitsubishi case is pending.

Attorney General Lockyer also filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Deutsch v. Turner Corporation. At issue is the constitutionality of the extended time to file claims for unpaid wages and injury suffered by persons who were forced to work for little or no pay for private companies in Nazi Germany and its allies during World War II. The German company being sued claims the law violates the Due Process or Foreign Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, raises political issues not for the court to decide, and interferes with foreign affairs powers reserved to the federal government. In January 2003, a federal appellate court ruled the law unconstitutional.

Attorney General Lockyer also filed amicus briefs in three other cases defending the ability of victims of the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide to file insurance company claims under the state Holocaust Victim Insurance Relief Act. The "friend of the court" briefs were filed in Gerling Global Reins. Corp. of America v. Low and Gerling Global Reins. Corp. of America v. Low and Marootian et al. v. New York Life Insurance Co. Insurance companies challenging the state law filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed in January 2003 to hear the Gerling matter.
Unfortunately, on June 23, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Holocaust Victim Insurance Act's requirement that insurance companies provide information about insurance policies purchased by Holocaust victims is unconstitutional because it interferes with the President's power to establish foreign policy.

Workers' Rights California law (AB 1889), effective January 1, 2001, generally prohibits anyone or any entity, governmental or private, from using state funds to support or oppose union organizing. Recipients of state funds are required to keep records that establish compliance with this law. The law provides for both Attorney General and private enforcement. However, a private party must file a "notice" with the Attorney General stating its intention to file an action. The Attorney General has 60 days after receipt of this notice to file an action. After expiration of this 60-day period, the private party may proceed on its own. The Civil Rights Enforcement Section has been charged with the responsibility for enforcing this new law. In late 2000, several business organizations filed a declaratory and injunctive relief action challenging the constitutionality of this law in federal district court. Attorney General Lockyer vigorously defended this action. After failing to get the district court to issue a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their facial challenge to the new law. On April 11, 2002, a new action challenging the constitutionality of AB 1889 was filed by, among others, the United States Chamber of Commerce. Attorney General Lockyer intends to continue his unwavering defense of the constitutionality of AB 1889 in United States Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. Lockyer, et al.

On November 19, 2001, Attorney General Lockyer filed his first action to enforce AB 1889. In Lockyer v. Fountain View, Inc., the Attorney General seeks an order from the Superior Court to compel the defendant-employer who is alleged to have violated the provisions of this law to produce records it is required to maintain in order to prove that it did not use state funds to pay for activities relating to the issue of whether its workers should unionize.

On December 18, 2001, the Attorney General filed an amicus brief in Valenzuela v. Carpenters Contractors Cooperation Committee in the California Court of Appeal. Carpenters Contractors Cooperation Committee (CCCC) is a private nonprofit organization that monitors public works projects for compliance with state and federal wage laws. Plaintiff Valenzuela Engineering sued CCCC pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 17200, alleging that CCCC had committed an unfair business practice when it conducted investigations regarding Valenzuela Engineering without a license. Plaintiff claimed CCCC did so in violation of the Private Investigator Act (PIA), Business and Professions Code sections 7512-7573, which requires that private investigators be licensed. The trial court granted the CCCC's Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion and dismissed this action. Plaintiff appealed. The Attorney General's brief argues that the SLAPP motion was properly granted and that the PIA does not apply to entities such as CCCC.

Worker's Rights. No content sent.