Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The California Supreme Court has repeatedly "interpreted the [law] as protecting classes other than those listed on its face". [6] For example, even prior to the 2005 addition of sexual orientation to the law's list of covered classes, the Unruh Act had been "construed as protecting gays and lesbians from arbitrary discrimination", [6] such as in the case of Rolon v.
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.) "Public records" include "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics." (Cal. Gov't.
A protected group, protected class (US), or prohibited ground (Canada) is a category by which people are qualified for special protection by a law, policy, or similar authority. In Canada and the United States, the term is frequently used in connection with employees and employment and housing .
Other statutes provide protection to groups not covered by the federal acts. Some state laws provide greater protection to employees of the state or of state contractors. The following table lists categories not protected by federal law. Age is included as well, since federal law only covers workers over 40.
Companies that become victims of data theft or other data security breaches can be ordered in civil class action lawsuits to pay statutory damages between $100 and $750 per California resident and incident, or actual damages, whichever is greater, and any other relief a court deems proper, subject to an option of the California Attorney General ...
The GDPR is the strictest data privacy law in the world, with few exceptions and hefty fines. In California, these concerns manifested as the California Consumer Protection Act somewhat modeled on the EU’s GDPR. [11] The CCPA’s initial drafting and placement on the 2018 ballot was led by Alastair Mactaggart. [12]
“In old Hollywood, child actors were exploited. In 2024, it’s now child influencers,” Gov. Newsom said.
Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967), was an important decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which was argued February 15–16, 1967, and decided June 12, 1967. The case involved Fourth Amendment and Fifth Amendment rights, the taking of handwriting exemplars, in-court identifications and warrantless searches.