PROGRAMS & SERVICES

Civil Rights
Highlights

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

The Attorney General of California has taken aggressive measures to improve civil rights enforcement. Shortly after taking office, Attorney General Lockyer created the Civil Rights Enforcement Section as a separate unit in the California Department of Justice dedicated exclusively to the enforcement of civil rights laws with staff increased five-fold to nine lawyers and an associate governmental program analyst.

CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT SECTION

Working with the public, state, federal and local government agencies, and with civil rights and community organizations, the Civil Rights Enforcement Section endeavors to prosecute those who have violated the law, and seeks the strongest remedies to deter further violations. Activities range from enforcement actions brought independently by the Attorney General to the representation of various state agencies, to community outreach and public education.

In addition to addressing California's Ralph Civil Rights Act, Bane Civil Rights Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act, the Civil Rights Enforcement Section represents state agencies responsible for enforcement of state civil rights laws. These state agencies include:

• Department of Fair Employment and Housing
• Fair Employment and Housing Commission
• Native American Heritage Commission, which is charged with enforcing the Native American Heritage Act that protects Native American burial and sacred sites;
• Commission on the Status of Women, which studies issues affecting women and makes recommendations to the state Legislature and governor;
• Division of the State Architect on matters relating to state disabled access laws; and
• California Department of Housing and Community Development with respect to issues concerning state laws that encourage the building of low and moderate income housing.

The Civil Rights Enforcement Section also is involved in amicus curiae briefs filed on behalf of the Attorney General and state agencies in cases brought by others that raise significant questions of law of interest or importance to California.

The Civil Rights Enforcement Section is involved as well in projects with other states and the federal government. Working with the National Association of Attorneys General and the Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice, California is involved in five multi-state task forces addressing disabled access to places of public accommodation, mortgage lending discrimination, housing discrimination, bias-related crimes, and employment.

CIVIL RIGHTS HANDBOOK

The Civil Rights Enforcement Section engages in a variety of public education and outreach efforts. This includes developing resource materials such as the latest edition of "Unlawful Discrimination: Your Rights & Remedies" , a civil rights handbook that covers many state and federal civil rights laws. The last previous update of the handbook was in 1990.

This 74-page handbook provides a practical guide for the public on California and federal civil rights laws. The nine chapters cover such topics as: hate violence, employment, housing, public accommodations, public assistance, education, medical and health care, miscellaneous anti-discrimination statutes, and peace officer misconduct.

Some 20,000 copies have been distributed to State of California libraries, civil rights organizations and the public. The report is available below in HTML format for access by installed voice synthesizer equipment for visually impaired persons. A copy on audio tape or in Braille may be requested from the Attorney General's Public Inquiry Unit.

Handbook  [852 KB/81 pages] | HTML

DISABILITY RIGHTS

Amicus Brief on Mitigating Measures in Determining Coverage for the ADA. Attorney General Lockyer and nine other state attorneys general joined in a "friend of the court" brief in February 1999 in Vaughn Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. before the U.S. Supreme Court. Authored by the attorneys general of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of West Virginia, the brief supported the plaintiff's arguments that in determining whether someone is disabled for purposes of the Americans With Disabilities Act, ameliorative effects of medication, prosthetic devices, or other mitigating measures should not be considered.

Residential Placements. Attorney General Lockyer withdrew in April 1999 amicus support given previously by his predecessor in Olmstead v. L.C. and E.W., a case then pending before the nation's high court. The "friend of the court" brief had argued that the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) does not require states to place persons with mental disabilities in the most integrated environment, and that the Eleventh Amendment bars ADA suits against the states in federal court. In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the ADA, under certain circumstances, may require that states place the persons with mental disabilities in the most integrated environment.

Protecting Against Insurance Discrimination. In Chabner v. United Mutual of Omaha, Attorney General Lockyer filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff who sued an insurance company for violating the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and the California Insurance Code by charging plaintiff a higher premium for life insurance because of plaintiff's disability. Attorney General Lockyer personally presented oral argument to the Ninth Circuit on February 8, 2000. The Ninth Circuit ruled in September 2000 that the ADA did not apply to insurance policies. However, accepting the argument of the Attorney General, the Court held that the insurer's action violated California law.

Gaining Expanded Access to Mass Transit for Visually Impaired Californians. On December 5, 2002, Attorney General Lockyer entered into a settlement agreement with Southern California Regional Rail Authority over disabled access violations involving Metrolink, the commuter rail network serving Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties. The settlement will mean improvements in service to enable visually impaired Californians to more safely use Metrolink to get to work, to school and for everyday travel. Under the agreement, Metrolink ticket vending machines at all 51 stations will be retrofitted with raised lettering, Braille instructions and tactile graphics and trails to improve access for visually-impaired commuters. Earlier, the Attorney General obtained a settlement agreement with the Metropolitan Transit Authority to have significant improvements to access provided for the disabled. An investigation concluded by the Attorney General in October 2000 found the MTA's East Portal facility at Los Angeles' Union Station did not comply with state disability access laws and regulations.

New Disability Training for Hotel Employees and Improved Accommodation Policies. In a settlement with the Attorney General, a luxury southern California hotel has agreed to provide training on disability issues to all 300-plus employees, and to adopt written policies respecting the hotel's treatment of persons with disabilities who seek to use its facilities. The settlement comes from an Attorney General's investigation concluded in April 2001 into allegations that the hotel, after initially extending accommodations, canceled reservations for the family of a little boy who requires 24-hour nursing care. The child was coming to California to see a specialist and to visit Disneyland. The hotel claimed that, by allowing medical staff and equipment in the hotel, it would be violating a City of Beverly Hills ordinance. The hotel later reversed itself, but the family had already canceled travel plans.

Urging Better Local Compliance. On December 23, 2002, Attorney General Lockyer issued a letter to all District Attorneys, City Attorneys and County Counsel urging them to join him in a renewed and concerted effort to gain better compliance with and to improve enforcement of California disabled access laws.

Urging Reasonable Accommodation Ordinances. On May 15, 2001, Attorney General Lockyer issued a letter urging local governments to consider enacting an ordinance to provide a special procedure for processing "reasonable accommodation" applications made by persons with disabilities who seek relief from local land use and zoning laws in order to fully enjoy the use of housing accommodations. This letter was sent to the mayor of every incorporated city and the chair of every county board of supervisors in the State of California.

Reminding Local Governments of Open Meetings Compliance. On April 23, 2002, Attorney General Lockyer issued a letter to all cities and counties that reminds them of their obligation under the Brown Open Meeting Act, Government Code section 54961 et seq., to hold their meetings in facilities that are accessible to all Californians.

Reminder to Local Building Officials. On April 29, 2002, Attorney General Locker issued a letter to all local building officials in California that reminds these officials of their statutory obligation to enforce California's access laws and regulations, and urges them to vigorously enforce those laws and regulations.

FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Age Discrimination Amicus Withdrawn. In January of 1999, Attorney General Lockyer withdrew amicus brief support previously given by his predecessor in Codger v. Board of Regents of the State of Tennessee (on petition for writ of certiorari), a case in which amici states had argued that the Eleventh Amendment bars Age Discrimination in Employment Act cases brought against a state.

Employment Discrimination and Mandatory Arbitration. Attorney General Lockyer in September 1999 filed an amicus brief in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychare Services, a case before the California Supreme Court involving mandatory arbitration of employment discrimination claims. The Attorney General urged the state high court to hold mandatory arbitration agreements unenforceable under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and contrary to public policy. The "friend of the court" brief argued that upholding such agreements will prevent employees from pursuing their court and administrative remedies under FEHA, thus undermining public enforcement of this important anti-discrimination statute. In August 2000, the California Supreme Court ruled that while not violating public policy such agreements must meet strict requirements to be enforceable.

Seeking to Protect State Employment Discrimination Claims. In September 2000, the Attorney General filed an amicus brief joined by 20 states in Circuit City v. Adams in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding employment discrimination claims. The "friend of the court" brief urged the high court to uphold a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply to contracts of employment and, therefore, a state employment discrimination claim could not be subjected to arbitration under the federal law. California was joined in the brief by Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. In a narrow majority ruling in March 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act applies to contracts of employment.

Protecting Against Workplace Harassment. On July 2, 1999, Attorney General Lockyer filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court in support of the plaintiff in Carrisales v. Department of Corrections. The Court of Appeal held that a non-supervisory coworker who sexually harasses another coworker cannot be held personally liable for such harassment under the Fair Employment Housing Act. The "friend of the court" brief argued that FEHA does impose personal liability on a coworker who harasses another coworker even though the harasser is not a supervisory employee. While the state high court upheld the Court of Appeal ruling, the Legislature enacted new law to overturn the decision and make clear that harassment by non-supervisory co-workers is actionable.

FEHA Protections Against Workplace Harassment. The California Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a 2-1 appellate court decision in Salazar v. Diversified Paratransit that the Fair Employment and Housing Act under does not cover employer liability for harassment of an employee by a client or customer. The Attorney General in April 2002 filed a "friend of the court" brief in the state Court of Appeal arguing with the plaintiff that, under certain circumstances, an employer may be held liable under FEHA for harassment of an employee by a client or customer.

EEOC Enforcement Authority. In May 2001, Attorney General Lockyer joined in an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to find that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is not barred from bringing victim-specific monetary remedies such as back pay and damages if the victim already has agreed to arbitrate a discrimination claim. The "friend of the court" brief in Equal Opportunity Employment Commission v. Waffle House, Inc. was authored by the Attorney General of Missouri. In January 2002, the Supreme Court held that private agreements to arbitrate employment discrimination claims do not bar the EEOC from seeking such victim-specific remedies.

Disability Standards. Attorney General Lockyer in March 2002 filed a "friend of the court" brief with the state Supreme Court in Colmenares v. Braemar Country Club, arguing with the plaintiff that the definition of "physical disability" in the newly enacted Prudence Poppink Act merely codifies the existing definition under the state Fair Employment and Housing Act. At issue is whether the definition in the new law that took effect in January 2001 should be applied only prospectively. The law defines "physical disability" to limit a major life activity but does not require the "substantial limitation" standard imposed by the federal Americans With Disabilities Act. The court issued a decision adopting the position advanced by Attorney General Lockyer.

HATE CRIMES

Rapid Response Protocol. In August of 1999, the Attorney General issued a Rapid Response Protocol to assist in the investigation, identification, arrest, prosecution and conviction of those who commit hate crimes. The protocol will ensure an immediate deployment of California Department of Justice resources when a hate crime occurs involving serious injury, death or significant destruction of property. Department resources to be made available to assist local and federal law enforcement agencies include: forensic services, intelligence specialists, profilers, criminal and civil rights attorneys, and support for victims of hate crimes.

PREVENTING HATE CRIMES INFORMATION. The Attorney General has available brochures in nine languages on how to identify hate crimes, how to report hate crimes and the services available to victims of hate crimes.

Rapid Response Protocol. In August of 1999, the Attorney General issued a Rapid Response Protocol to assist in the investigation, identification, arrest, prosecution and conviction of those who commit hate crimes. The protocol will ensure an immediate deployment of California Department of Justice resources when a hate crime occurs involving serious injury, death or significant destruction of property. Department resources to be made available to assist local and federal law enforcement agencies include: forensic services, intelligence specialists, profilers, criminal and civil rights attorneys, and support for victims of hate crimes.

Attorney General's Civil Rights Commission on Hate Crimes. A special commission was established in 2000 by Attorney General Lockyer to explore the under-reporting of hate crimes, a concern raised by both law enforcement agencies and civil rights groups. Commission chairs were Joseph McNamara, nationally recognized police practices expert and former San Jose Chief of Police, and Edward James Olmos, actor and community activist. The Commission held nearly two dozen regional meetings throughout the state to gather information to assist it in developing recommendations. A final report, Reporting Hate Crimes, was issued in March 2001 detailing findings and 16 recommendations on how to improve the reporting of hate crimes. The Attorney General's Office has been compiling annual hate crime statistics reported by law enforcement agencies since 1985.

Education & Outreach. To help educate the public on civil rights laws and hate crime prevention, the Civil Rights Enforcement Section meets regularly with the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations Network Against Hate Crime, the Orange County Human Relations Hate Crime Network, the Bay Area Hate Crime Investigators Association, the San Diego Regional Hate Crimes Coalition, and the Greater Sacramento Area Hate Crimes Task Force. Additionally, the Civil Rights Enforcement Section is involved in the training of law enforcement. As part of community outreach and law enforcement training, the Attorney General in May 2000 sponsored a statewide conference on hate crimes at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. The Attorney General also unveiled the Hate Crimes Prototype Database, an investigative tool that will help local law enforcement agencies in California to more effectively track and solve hate crimes.

Defending Anti-Hate Crime Laws. On August 9, 2002, Attorney General Lockyer filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in Virginia v. Black. This case addresses the constitutionality of Virginia's "cross-burning" statute, which prohibits the burning of a cross on public or private property, if done with the intent to intimidate any person. The Virginia Supreme Court held that this statute violates the free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment.

OTHER PROJECTS. The Civil Rights Enforcement Section is actively involved in other hate crime projects, including: the Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission Network Against Hate Crime, the Orange County Human Relations Commission Hate Crimes Network, the Greater Sacramento Area Hate Crimes Network, and the Bay Area Hate Crimes Investigators Association.

HOUSING DISCRIMINATION

Defending Rights of Tenants with Disabilities. In August 1999, Attorney General Lockyer obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prohibit a Walnut Creek landlord from refusing to allow two disabled tenants to install air conditioners considered necessary for their medical conditions. Doctors for the tenants had determined that, for health and safety reasons, the tenants' apartments had to be cooled to temperatures that could not be maintained without the installation of the window air conditioners.

Anti-Discrimination Protections. In Thomas v. City of Anchorage, et al. , the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Alaska state and city laws prohibiting discrimination against unmarried couple could not be enforced against landlords who, for religious reasons, refuse to rent to unmarried cohabiting couples. On January 28, 1999, Attorney General Lockyer filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in support of the State of Alaska's request for rehearing and its suggestion for a hearing en banc. The states of Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington joined in that brief. When a hearing en banc was granted, the Attorney General filed a second amicus brief. Both briefs argue that the landlords' religious beliefs must yield to the relevant fair housing laws. The Ninth Circuit, while not reaching the merits of the case, issued an opinion in which it dismissed the landlords' complaint.

Protecting Redress Rights. In Konig v. Fair Employment & Housing Commission, Attorney General Lockyer defended the state law that empowers California's fair housing agency to award damages for emotional distress suffered by victims of housing discrimination. The trial court held this statute unconstitutional. The Court of Appeal affirmed. Attorney General Lockyer successfully petitioned the State's high court to hear this case. On July 29, 2002, the Court reversed the lower courts and held that the Commission may, without violating the California Constitution, award damages for emotional distress to victims of housing discrimination.

Discrimination Investigations. In Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Stanislaus County, the Attorney General won reversal of a trial court ruling that would have made it more difficult to investigate cases of housing discrimination. The department had been investigating allegations of housing discrimination based on race and marital status. The subject of the investigation refused to turn over tenant and applicant records and obtained a trial court ruling that disclosure would violate the rights of third parties. The Court of Appeal overruled the decision, finding that the right to privacy did not bar production of the rental records.

Expanded Affordable Housing. On March 25, 2002, Attorney General Lockyer entered into a settlement agreement to ensure low- and moderate-income housing funds are used properly. The settlement concluded an investigation of a redevelopment agency that had improperly used its funds. The redevelopment agency agreed to repay almost $800,000 to its low and moderate income housing fund.

POLICE MISCONDUCT

In January 1999, Attorney General Lockyer issued a new policy governing the review of complaints received by the Department of Justice that allege police misconduct by local law enforcement agencies or their employees. Complaints that have exhausted the local review process will be referred to both the Criminal Law Division and the Civil Rights Enforcement Section for review and appropriate action.

In the late spring of 1999, after concluding that the four officers who were involved in the shooting death of Tyisha Miller in Riverside, California, should not be criminally charged, the Attorney General launched what is believed to be the first civil investigation of a local law enforcement agency ever conducted by his office. On March 5, 2001, Attorney General Lockyer filed a complaint and stipulated judgment in People of the State of California, etc. v. City of Riverside, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. 355410.

This stipulated judgment resolved a nearly two-year civil rights investigation into the practices and policies of the City of Riverside Police Department. It is believed that this is the first consent decree to reform a local police department ever secured by a state attorney general under state law. The judgment, which will remain in effect for a period of five years, requires the Riverside Police Department to implement reforms in areas of training, supervision, and accountability. The City of Riverside will be required to pay the cost of a consultant to assist the Attorney General in monitoring compliance with the terms of the judgment.

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

In East Bay Asian Local Development Corp., et al. v. State of California, Attorney General Lockyer successfully defended an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought against the State to invalidate state law that exempts, under certain circumstances, noncommercial property owned by religious organizations from local historic landmark ordinances. Plaintiffs contended, among other things, that the relevant statutes unconstitutionally establish religion. The trial court declared these statutes unconstitutional. The case ultimately reached the California Supreme Court, where a Section deputy presented oral argument. On December 21, 2000, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the relevant statutes. The Court reasoned the Legislature may exempt religious organizations from historic landmark ordinances to avoid potential free exercise clause violations. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which the Court subsequently denied.

WOMENS RIGHTS

In 1999, Attorney General Lockyer joined the Attorneys General of 30 other states in urging the United States Supreme Court to hear the case of United States v. Morrison regarding the federal Violence Against Women Act. A federal appellate court earlier held that the law is unconstitutional because Congress exceeded its authority to regulate interstate commerce. In an amicus curiae brief, the Attorneys General urged the United States Supreme Court to reverse the appellate court ruling and uphold the constitutionality of this important federal law that was passed to address the widespread incidence of violence against women. Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagreed and held the law to be unconstitutional.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

In 2002, the Attorney General successfully defended a new state law protecting access to healthcare facilities against a federal court challenge in Sanctity of Human Life Network, et al. v. Lockyer, et al. Modeled after existing federal law, the California Freedom of Access to Clinic and Church Entrances Act and the Reproductive Rights Law Enforcement Act requires the Attorney General to collect specified information that includes access violations and sets forth criminal penalties for intentionally injuring or intimidating any reproductive health services client, provider or assistant, by force, threat of force or physical obstruction that is a crime of violence. Opponents challenged the law enacted by SB 780 as unconstitutionally vague and violating their freedom of speech, privacy rights and due process. At the request of the Attorney General, the federal court dismissed the challenge. On a related issue, the Attorney General joined in an amicus brief authored by New York Attorney General in Hill v. State of Colorado to defend the ability of individuals to have access to healthcare facilities.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION

On September 10, 2003, Attorney General Lockyer filed an amicus brief in support of the City of Berkeley's effort to avoid funding a private discriminatory program. At issue before the California Supreme Court is a city policy that requires any group seeking a subsidy for free marina berthing to provide written assurances that the group does not engage in discriminatory practices. The Sea Scouts in Evans v. City of Berkeley contends that the city's denial of its request violates the First Amendment. In his amicus brief, Attorney General Lockyer supports the City's argument that the City did not engage in impermissible viewpoint discrimination against the Sea Scouts. The brief argues that the California and U.S. Constitutions do not require governments to fund discriminatory programs. The brief adds that the city's anti-discrimination condition meets the "unconstitutional conditions" and "viewpoint discrimination" standards under state and federal constitutions. To rule otherwise would violate California's long-established policy that governments should not subsidize or promote organizations that engage in discrimination, the brief states.

On February 17, 1999, Attorney General Lockyer withdrew his predecessor's amicus brief support in the Hawaii Supreme Court in Baehr v. Miike. The amicus brief that was filed argued that Hawaii should not sanction same-sex marriage because it would cause discord with other states.

In 2000, the Attorney General joined six other states in an amicus brief authored by the New York Attorney General in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale seeking to uphold the ability of states to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation by the Boy Scouts. At issue in the U.S. Supreme Court case was a New Jersey state law prohibiting discrimination by public accommodations to the Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts sought to reverse a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that prevented the organization from banning gays as members, arguing a right to freedom of association under the First Amendment. Joining in the "friend of the court" brief were Hawaii, Maryland, Oklahoma, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. The Supreme Court ruled in a split 5-4 decision in favor of the Boy Scouts.

PROPOSITION 209

In Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose (2000) 24 Cal.4th 537, the California Supreme Court held that the City of San Jose's programon Minority-owned Business Enterprises/Women-owned Business Enterprises (MBE/WBE) violates Proposition 209, California Constitution, article I, section 31, which prohibits, among other things, "preferences" in public employment. San Jose's program requires that prime contractors either (1) document that they would be using the number of MBE/WBE subcontractors on a project that would be expected in the absence of discrimination; or (2) document that they had contacted and at least attempted to negotiate with four MBE/WBE subcontractors in each appropriate trade area identified for a project. The Supreme Court held that both of these requirements violates Proposition 209. Attorney General Lockyer filed an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of focused or targeted recruitment or outreach programs, and personally presented oral argument to the Court.

SOCIAL/ECONOMIC JUSTICE

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. Targeting illegal immigration consulting services, Attorney General Lockyer has moved to obtain compliance or shut down businesses that mislead and victimize consumers. Since 2001, enforcement action has been brought against at least a dozen businesses and more than 24 immigration consultants in the Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area and the Central Valley. The courts have ordered over $2 million in penalties and restitution for victims. More than 5,500 consumers who entered into contracts with immigration consulting companies have been given the opportunity to retrieve their client files. Attorney General Lockyer also sponsored legislation that took effect in January 2003 that makes it clear the attorney general, district attorney or city attorney may seek civil penalties of up to $100,000 per violation and injunctive relief against immigration consultants who violate state law.

In recent developments, the Los Angeles Superior Court on March 1, 2004, ordered $479,500 in civil penalties against Immigration Solution Center, Marina Balladares and Balladares & Associate, Inc. for engaging in false and misleading advertising, the unlicensed practice of law and violating state law regulating immigration consultants. In September 2003, two attorneys and four non-attorneys in the Immigration Solution Center case agreed to pay $169,000 in civil penalties, attorney's fees, costs and restitution to settle the complaint filed by the Attorney General's Office. Also in September 2003, the Attorney General's Office settled lawsuits against 13 individuals and another large-volume immigration consulting firm, Immigration World Wide Services, for more than $20,000 in civil penalties, costs and restitution for victims who filed complaints with the Attorney General's Office of Immigrant Assistance. The court also ordered the company to shut down under strict supervision by the Attorney General's Office.

On February 26, 2004, the Attorney General obtained $1.85 million in civil fines against a husband and wife team that defrauded hundreds of Chinese immigrants who paid as much as $8,000 for immigration and legal assistance that Asian Pacific Legal Services was not authorized to provide. The Los Angeles Superior Court ordered full restitution for the victims who testified in the seven-day trial and banned the couple from providing unlawful immigration consulting services in the future.

On February 13, 2004, the Fresno Superior Court entered a default judgment against Oficinas Marquez and its owner Carlos Marquez, ordering payment of civil penalties of $100,000 and attorneys fees and costs for violating state law that requires a $50,000 bond to be filed with the state. The bonds are required to help protect consumers. In November 2003, the Madera Superior Court ordered Centro Latino and its owners to cease operating as immigration consultants without the bonds required by the state.

On January 27, 2004, the Attorney General's Office filed complaints in Sacramento County against three companies - Gateway Express, Manning & Suftin and Trust International - alleged to be in violation of state requirements for immigration consultants.

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.

Worker's 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.

NEW LAWS

In 1999, Attorney General Lockyer co-sponsored AB 1670 (Committee on Judiciary), an omnibus civil rights bill (Chapter 591, Stats. of 1999) that made significant changes to California's civil rights laws that will help combat discrimination in a variety of areas.

In 2000, Attorney General Lockyer sponsored AB 2719 (Wesson) which strengthened California's Bane Civil Rights Act by removing the requirement that discriminatory intent be established in order to maintain a claim under this law. This bill (Chapter 98, Stats. of 2000) also strengthened the Ralph Civil Rights Act by giving authority to the Attorney General and district and city attorneys to seek a civil penalty of $25,000, payable to the person whose rights under this law have been violated, in any civil action they institute to enforce this law.

In 2001, Attorney General Lockyer sponsored AB 587 (Firebaugh) which became effective on January 1, 2002. This legislation (Chapter 261 , Stats. of 2001) strengthened the Bane Civil Rights Act by granting authority to the Attorney General and district and city attorneys to seek a civil penalty of $25,000, payable to the person whose rights have been violated, in any civil action they institute to enforce this law.

In 2002, Attorney General Lockyer sponsored AB 2524 (Goldberg), which will became law on January 1, 2003. This new law (Chapter 244, Stats. of 2002) requires parties to any proceeding before the California Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, or appellate division of the superior court, in cases involving the alleged violation, application or construction of specified California civil rights statutes, to serve copies of their briefs or petitions on the State Solicitor General of the Office of the Attorney General. This new law will improve the Attorney General's ability to identify, at the earliest stage possible, cases which present important civil rights issues and may warrant his participation as amicus curiae.

In 2002, Attorney General Lockyer sponsored AB 1999 (Correa/Maldonado), which took effect on January 1, 2003. This new law (Chapter 705, Stats. of 2002) amends the Immigration Consultants Act (ICA), Business and Professions Code section 22440 et seq., to authorize the Attorney General, district attorneys, and city attorneys to seek a civil penalty, not to exceed $100,000 for each violation of ICA committed by persons or businesses who provide immigration-related services. This amendment furthers the Attorney General's efforts to deter this type of consumer fraud in California.