For landlords, the most important provisions in a lease or rental agreement may be those that limit the number of persons occupying the premises and that require tenants to specify their identities. This prevents a tenant’s guests from turning into tenants. But balancing this potential problem with allowing reasonable guest overnight stays requires a carefully considered lease provision.
Employers generally can’t use an applicant’s age as a hiring criterion without violating California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (see Govt C §12940(a)) and the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 USC §§621–634). Most employers know this and make sure not to ask about the applicant’s age. But they often ask other questions or include language in a job posting that run afoul of the law.
It’s rare for a filed pleading to go missing, but it happens. An original verified pleading or declaration in a time-sensitive matter is safely filed with the court, but at the hearing, the judge flips though the file and states, “I know this pleading was filed, and I looked at it yesterday, but I can’t find the original in the file and it’s necessary for me to proceed. I can continue the matter so you can provide a new pleading, or deny without prejudice. Counsel, what’s your preference?” What do you do?
In 2017, California enacted a law precluding employers from asking about prior salary history and requiring employers to give applicants, on reasonable request, the pay scale for a position. This law raised many questions for employers, including who’s “an applicant,” what’s a “pay scale,” and what constitutes a “reasonable request?” Now we have the clarifications.
After a party objects to the admission of evidence, the proponent of the evidence can respond by arguing that the objection doesn’t apply or isn’t valid, or that the evidence is admissible because of an exception to the ground stated in the objection. Where that argument is made can make a big difference—should you argue in open court or in a sidebar conference?
A wealth tax proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren has found favor in certain academic circles, including the University of California, Berkeley. It would be 2 percent of worldwide assets of U.S. citizens and residents in excess of $50 million and 3 percent of assets in excess of $1 billion, in addition to existing income and transfer taxes. It’s claimed this wealth tax would raise an estimated $2.75 trillion in revenue over 10 years. But is it constitutional?