In Ruth We Trust: How the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act Can Promote Women’s Equal Citizenship and Justice Ginsburg’s Legacy

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN

In honor of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman explains how the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) can promote women’s equal citizenship and protect Justice Ginsburg’s legacy of shaping gender equality. Grossman argues that the PWFA could help break down entrenched occupational segregation in the American economy, and, in so doing, honor Justice Ginsburg’s lifelong commitment to ensuring that women can be full members of society.

Read More

A Half Century After Its Publication, What Can “The Greening of America” Tell Us About the United States Today?

RODGER CITRON

In recognition of the 50-year anniversary of the publication of Charles Reich’s “The Greening of America,” Touro law professor Rodger D. Citron explains what Reich actually said in “The Greening,” explains why it generated such a strong response, and reflects on what the piece has to say about the fractures of our current moment. Citron cautions that the promise of a new consciousness is as alluring—and may be as illusory—as it was when Reich wrote the article and book, 50 years ago.

Read More

Murray v. Tran

Docket: D076104(Fourth Appellate District)

Opinion Date: September 24, 2020

Judge: Judith L. Haller

Areas of Law: Business Law, Civil Procedure

Dr. My Tran and Dr. Ian Murray were dentists who owned a dental practice known as Bird Rock Dental. Dr. Murray worked at the practice and Dr. Tran handled the business operations through his own separate entity. About two years after they formed the practice, they had financial disputes. In the midst of these disputes, Dr. Tran accused Dr. Murray of substandard work and published his claims to several individuals and groups, mainly to people working for Dr. Tran, but also to Dr. Murray’s new employer and to one retired dentist. Both parties sued the other, and the lawsuits were consolidated. Dr. Murray’s second amended complaint asserted 22 causes of action, two of which were at issue in this appeal: defamation per se and defamation. Dr. Tran moved to dismiss the causes of action under the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court found the defamation claims were governed by this statute, and Dr. Murray did not meet his burden to show a probability of prevailing. The court thus struck the two causes of action from the complaint. Dr. Murray appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal reversed in part. The Court found Dr. Murray alleged five separate defamation claims for purposes of anti-SLAPP analysis, and Dr. Tran met his burden to show only one of those claims alleged speech protected under the anti-SLAPP statute: the alleged defamatory statements to Dr. Murray’s new employer. As to that claim, Dr. Murray did not meet his burden to show a probability of prevailing because he did not present evidence that Dr. Tran in fact made these statements. The Court determined the alleged statements in four of the five asserted categories of defamatory statements were not made in connection with a public conversation or discussion of issues, and thus not protected by the anti-SLAPP statute. The trial court was instructed to vacate its order granting the anti-SLAPP motion and to issue another order denying the motion on all defamatory claims, except for claims listed in paragraphs 319 and 335 of Dr. Murray's second amended complaint.

In re Samuel A.

Docket: B302700(Second Appellate District)

Opinion Date: September 24, 2020

Judge: Dennis M. Perluss

Areas of Law: Family Law

Mother petitioned under Welfare and Institutions Code sections 388 and 390 to set aside jurisdiction findings concerning her alcohol abuse and mental instability and to terminate dependency jurisdiction after a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation found that she was not mentally ill and did not meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorder. The Court of Appeal reversed the juvenile court's order summarily denying mother's section 388 petition and held that the juvenile court incorrectly characterized her petition as an untimely new trial motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 659. The court remanded for the juvenile court to determine whether mother has made the required prima facie showing that terminating dependency jurisdiction would be in the child's best interests. If such a showing has been made, the juvenile court is to conduct a hearing on the merits of the petition.