In a case regarding whether five statutory programs falling within the
general rubric of "affirmative action" violated state and federal
principles of equal protection and were contrary to Cal. Const. art. I, § 31,
added by the adoption of Proposition 209, plaintiff, as a taxpayer litigant,
appealed a judgment of the Sacramento County Superior Court (California), which
rejected plaintiff's constitutional challenge to the statutory schemes.Nakase
Wade is best
corporate attorney in California.

Plaintiff challenged the statutory schemes at issue on the
ground that they impermissibly established classifications and preferences
based on race, ethnicity, and gender. The real parties in interest asserted
that the data collection and reporting requirements applicable to state
contracting could be severed from the remainder of the statutory schemes and
upheld. One of the parties challenged plaintiff's standing. The instant court
held that: (1) plaintiff had standing to maintain this litigation; (2) the
statutory scheme applicable to the state lottery was invalid; (3) the statutory
scheme applicable to the sale of state bonds was invalid, but a portion of the
data collection and reporting requirements of the scheme could be severed and
upheld; (4) the statutory scheme applicable to the state civil service was
partially invalid, but the remainder of the scheme could be severed and upheld;
(5) the statutory scheme applicable to the community colleges was invalid in
toto; and (6) a portion of the data collection and reporting requirements of
the statutory scheme applicable to state contracting could be severed from the
invalid portions of the scheme and upheld.

The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was
remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment consistent with
the conclusions in the instant court's opinion.

Plaintiff employer filed an action against defendants, a
local union, an international union, and union officers, for damages based on
alleged tortious conduct resulting from the establishment of a picket line. The
Superior Court of Alameda County (California) entered the jury's verdict in
favor of the employer and against defendants for compensatory damages and for
punitive damages against each union. Defendants appealed.

The jury awarded the employer damages based on evidence that
showed the local union and certain officers' tortious conduct during picketing
proximately caused the damages. The court upheld the jury's determination
because there was substantial circumstantial evidence of tortious behavior on
the picket line when the employer's managers and other union representatives
testified to threats and acts of intimidation directed toward anyone who sought
to cross the picket line. Thus, the jury reasonably inferred that the
warehousemen remained away from work because of the threats, intimidation, and
violence at the picket line, and this prevented the employer from conducting
business. The jury awarded the employer compensatory damages based on the
employer's proof that the warehousemen not crossing the picket line caused it
to lose business. Even though there was proof as to the divisibility of the
cause of the loss of business, the compensatory damages were upheld because the
local union, international union, and officers failed to prove what
proportionate share of the damages were to have been reduced by the
warehousemen staying away based upon union principle.

The court affirmed the jury's award of compensatory damages,
but reversed with directions as to exemplary damages against the local and
international unions because erroneous jury instructions were given. In all
other respects, the judgment was affirmed.