California's Supreme Court dived into the growing pool of state worker furlough litigation Thursday when it reopened a challenge brought by attorneys employed by the State Compensation Insurance Fund. In March, the 1st District ruled in CASE v. Schwarzenegger that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did not have the authority to order 500 SCIF attorneys in 2009 to take two unpaid days each month because state law expressly protects the fund's employees from "staff cutbacks."
May 21, 2010 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
California’s Supreme Court dived into the growing pool of state worker furlough litigation Thursday when it reopened a challenge brought by attorneys employed by the State Compensation Insurance Fund.
In March, the 1st District ruled in CASE v. Schwarzenegger, 10 C.D.O.S. 3475, that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did not have the authority to order 500 SCIF attorneys in 2009 to take two unpaid days each month because state law expressly protects the fund’s employees from “staff cutbacks.”
Presented by BigVoodoo
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
The Legal Intelligencer honors lawyers leaving a mark on the legal community in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
A large and well-established Tampa company is seeking a contracts administrator to support the company's in-house attorney and manage a wide...
We are seeking an attorney to join our commercial finance practice in either our Stamford, Hartford or New Haven offices. Candidates should ...
We are seeking an attorney to join our corporate and transactional practice. Candidates should have a minimum of 8 years of general corporat...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
