If you’ve been the victim of discrimination, harassment or retaliation in your employment in California, visit our website at http://www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

Despite the economy and the current economic condition of the State of California, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the EEOC and the Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) division of the Department of Industrial Relations still advise California labor attorneys that they have the resources to investigate complaints.

Employees who have signed arbitration agreements or who have received threats of legal action if they file a claim with any of these agencies should first contact a California labor lawyer but should also note that the State of California and the Federal Government generally will not recognize such restrictions on California and U.S. employees. Indeed, attempts to restrict employees from having government agencies investigate wrongdoing by employers may undergo severe scrutiny.

Generally, valid waivers of rights must specifically refer to the rights or claims that are being waived. They may not generally waive rights or claims that may arise in the future without additional language. And they must advise the individual in writing to consult an attorney before signing the waiver.

The position of the EEOC, for instance, is that even a valid waiver of rights by an employee does not affect the EEOC’s rights and responsibilities to enforce the law. While a valid arbitration agreement may require arbitration between an employee and an employer, it does not bar the EEOC from seeking judicial relief on behalf of an employee.

Indeed, retaliation against an employee after she reports harassment or discrimination by terminating the employee, and then a company’s further retaliation either by threatening legal action or by termination may constitutes a separate claim on top of the original claim for harassment or discrimination. Unfortunately, employees without the benefit of counsel from a California labor lawyer may be taken in by such threats.

Both the DFEH, the EEOC may handle a discrimination, harassment and retaliation claim and the DLSE/DIR’s Sacramento office which enforces retaliation laws, may act simultaneously, so long as the matters are timely filed with each agency within the appropriate statutes of limitations.

With the DFEH, once the employee or ex-employee makes an appointment to start the process, the wheels will begin turning but the statute of limitations is not tolled until a complaint is filed by the employee. With the EEOC, once the employee files an intake questionnaire and an affidavit describing the discrimination, the filing requirement will be met with the EEOC, after which the EEOC will notify the employer of the filed charge. After the EEOC receives the charge, they are obligated to conduct an investigation and they have the power to issue subpoenas in connection with their investigation. If the EEOC finds unlawful discrimination, they have the power to eliminate such unlawful practices. Even an enforceable agreement binding an employee to arbitrate disputes with the employer does not affect the EEOC’s power to sue the employer to enjoin further violations. Nor does it bar the EEOC from seeking victim-specific relief, including money damages.

If the EEOC is unable to secure a conciliation agreement with an employer within 30 days after a charge is filed, the EEOC may file a civil action against the employer and may seek temporary or permanent relief.

If the DFEH decides to pursue a matter themselves, they may issue an accusation and prosecute the claim before the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (FEHC). Like the EEOC, the DFEH has the power to issue subpoenas, take depositions and serve written interrogatories. If they find a violation, they will seek to eliminate it.

The DFEH has the authority to issue cease-and-desist orders, and to award reinstatement, backpay, front pay, emotional damages, and an administrative fine. The amount of that fine is determined by factors which include willful, intentional or purposeful conduct, refusal to prevent or eliminate discrimination, conscious disregard for the rights of employees, commission of unlawful conduct, intimidation or harassment, conduct without just cause or excuse and multiple violations of the FEHA.

While the amount awarded for emotional distress may not exceed $150,000 for each person, an additional amount of $150,000 may be awarded for intimidation. The FEHC may also award reasonable attorney fees, including expert witness fees to the prevailing party. However, the award to the prevailing party is discretionary and the courts generally do not require a losing plaintiff to pay the employer’s California labor attorney’s fees and costs.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals against employment discrimination on the basis of race and color, as well as national origin, sex and religion. It applies to employers with 15 or more individuals. It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual, even if that discrimination is prompted by the racially motivated actions of other employees.

Title VII prohibits offensive conduct that is unwelcome and offensive, and that is severe or pervasive. Employers are required to take appropriate steps to prevent and correct unlawful harassment. Employers may not fire or otherwise retaliate against or take an adverse action against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination.

Adverse actions include an action taken to try to keep someone from opposing a discriminatory practice, or from participating in an employment discrimination proceeding. Prohibited acts of retaliation can occur after termination and receive the same scrutiny by the DFEH whether they occur before or after termination.

Protected activities of employees include complaining to anyone about alleged discrimination against oneself or others, taking part in employment discrimination proceedings, and filing a charge of employment discrimination.

While the amount of damages that can be awarded for compensatory and punitive damages recoverable under Title VII go up to only $300,000 against companies with 501 or more employees, there are no such limits under the FEHA. Even under Title VII, damages for emotional distress may be awarded. Title VII specifically authorizes compensatory damages for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1991, neither compensatory nor punitive damages were recoverable under Title VII. By contrast, both types of damages were and are available under the FEHA. Punitive damages are also now available against nongovernmental entities under Title VII for cases of intentional employment discrimination, including cases proved by disparate treatment where the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual. The standard is similar with the FEHA.

One of the recurring themes employers use to justify the termination of an employee they have harassed or discriminated against to California labor lawyers, is that the termination was part of a planned reduction in employees. However, under the law, even if good cause exists for a reduction in force, an employer’s decision to lay off certain employees while retaining others may be challenged by a California labor attorney under applicable anti-discrimination laws. A case involving just this situation receiving a great deal of national publicity involves the lay offs of a disproportionate number of women from Wall Street institutions.

Employers are bound by state laws that provide greater protection for employment than comparable federal laws, which is the reason most employment claims are filed with the FEHA.

When it comes to harassment and retaliation, the California constitution prohibits harassment based upon factors which include race, color, sex, national or ethnic origin. Discrimination based on physical or mental disability, marital status, a medical condition (including pregnancy and child birth) and sexual orientation is also prohibited. The FEHA also requires employers to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.

With the DFEH, the interviewing consultant drafts a formal complaint. If the complaint is accepted for investigation, the complaint is also filed with the EEOC. After the DFEH issues an accusation, the DFEH may litigate the case in a public hearing before the Fair Employment and Housing Commission. If emotional distress damages or administrative fines are sought, the employee can have the case moved to a civil court. If the case is moved to court, the DFEH prosecutes, but the complainant is the real party in interest.

Government codes section 12965(b) requires that individuals must exhaust their administrative remedies with the DFEH by filing a complaint and obtaining a “right-to-sue notice” from the Department before filing a lawsuit. The DFEH, however, will accept requests for an immediate “right-to-sue-notice” from persons and from their California labor lawyers for clients who have decided to proceed in court. A DFEH complaint must be filed within one year from the last act of discrimination or you may lose your right to file a lawsuit.

Once a “right-to-sue-notice” is received from the DFEH, the employee has one year to file a civil lawsuit. Failure to do so may again cause you to lose your right to sue.

Common mistakes by harassment victims are not telling the person doing the harassment to stop, not documenting the harassment by that person, not reporting the harassment to your superiors, not making sure the employer is taking action to end the harassment, not obtaining medical or psychological help when needed, not realizing that retaliation is illegal, accepting the word of your employer that you do not have a case for harassment or discrimination, not filing a DFEH, EEOC or DLSE/DIR complaint within the time allowed, not having an attorney assess whether any arbitration agreement is binding, and not consulting with an attorney.

A complaint to the EEOC under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be made within 180 days from the date of the incident. This period, however, is extended to 300 days if the employee also files a complaint with the DFEH. Complaints of discrimination commonly include discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, sexual orientation and retaliation or reprisal. That time period, however, can be reduced to as little as 30 days after a complainant receives notice that a state agency such as the DFEH has terminated its processing of a charge. It is thus best to contact the EEOC immediately whenever discrimination is suspected because of its short statutes of limitations.

In addition, many governmental agencies require that for an employee or applicant for employment to preserve their rights under EEO laws, they must contact an EEO Counselor within 45 calendar days of the alleged discriminatory action. There are exceptions and grounds for extending this period, but neither a complainant nor his or her California labor attorney does not want to be in a position to be having to argue those grounds as the complaint may be deemed too late to be accepted.

Once a complaint is filed with the EEOC, if the EEOC finds substantial evidence of discrimination, it will file a lawsuit. If the EEOC does not find sufficient facts to support the complaint, it dismisses the complaint and issues a “right to sue” letter to the complaining party. A lawsuit must then be brought by the complaining party within 90 days of receiving the Right to Sue letter from the EEOC.

A much less publicized and less known agency, even among California labor attorneys in the State of California at which complaints for retaliation and discrimination can be filed is with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) of the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). An employee or job applicant alleging violation of any law under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner must file a complaint with the DLSE within six months of the adverse action. Adverse actions include unlawful discharge, demotion, suspension, reduction in pay or hours, refusal to hire or promote and other actions. There are, however, some exceptions to the 6-month deadline, but again, it is best to file a complaint as soon as possible to ensure that it is timely.

Filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner does not prevent a person or their California labor lawyer from filing a private lawsuit.

Visit our website at http://www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com and call us if you have been the victim of harassment, discrimination or retaliation in your employment in California.

Finally, an employee or job applicant who alleges retaliation for having complained about a workplace health or safety issue has the right to file a concurrent complaint with the federal OSHA within 30 days of the occurrence of the adverse action.

 

As an environmental attorney, and with all the recent footage coming in from around the world, it is clear not only that global warming is a problem, it is getting worse, and action is needed immediately.

 

What’s stopping action from taking place? Oil companies and energy companies of all kinds, some of whom reportedly spend more to confuse people and the issue than they do on alternative energy research.

 

Who else is at fault? Sadly, the Republican party, the executive actions of George Bush and what he has forced government agencies to do, and other groups, who because of their Republican support, were slow getting on the bandwagon.

 

The issue has also brought us some surprising heroes. Governor Schwarzenegger of California. Ex-President and Nobel Prize Winner, Al Gore. And scientists around the world.

 

One only need turn on the television to see the melting arctic ice, or to hear that polar bears are being forced to become cannibals to be concerned at how little is being done and how much is being done to confuse and fight those who are concerned about the environment. Even Senator McCain stands against his own running mate, Sarah Palin on environmental issues.

 

School children know more about the issue than adults because they study the science and refuse to believe the lies and false websites put out by the energy companies.

 

And yet, except for America, and China, the world seems to be as one, united in the fight against global warming. While more is being done around the world despite the obstinance of the U.S. and China, so much more could be accomplished if we had elected a leader in this area instead of one who led us into a costly and unnecessary war.

 

One can only applaud companies who are involved in renewable energy sources such as solar, and wind power, the building of energy free homes, environmental groups and the efforts of Governor Schwartzenegger to make California a leader in the world in reducing carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gasses.

 

It will take all of us to make the changes we need to save our planet, our environment and the animal species that are so much at risk. Only this week, in the news for October 2008, it was widely reported that one in four mammals face extinction. Yet, amazingly, there are still people who will either not believe that man is either the cause of global warming or who feel that it would be too costly to the economy to take actions to help the environment such as reducing greenhouse gasses.

 

It is hoped that with greater public awareness, and better education to our school children of the environmental problems we face, that when this new generation grows up demanding change and they ask the current generation how we could have let this problem get so bad without doing more to prevent it, it will not be too late to reverse the effects of mankind’s damage. 

 

 If you have an environmental legal matter in Orange County, San Diego, in Riverside, Palm Springs or anywhere in Southern California, we have the knowledge and resources to be your California Environmental Lawyers, and Orange County and San Diego Environment Attorneys. For this reason, be sure to hire a California law firm with environmental lawyers who can represent you from Palm Desert to Big Bear, Santa Ana, Chula Vista, Julian, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Carlsbad, Ventura and Malibu.

 

If you have an environmental matter and need to know your rights, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com  and learn about your rights and options and how we can assist you. You can also call us to speak directly to Sebastian Gibson on the phone about your legal matter.

The change has to do with the law. No, California agricultural lawyers won’t be in the produce aisle. And California food and drink or regulatory attorneys won’t be lurking near the frozen foods. California personal injury attorneys won’t be looking for slip and fall accident victims. But the change will please customers nonetheless. 

Until now, most consumers had no idea from which country the food they were eating came from. With the new COOL (Country of Origin Labeling) law taking effect after September 30, 2008, all that will change, with a few exceptions and a few quirks.

After years of lobbying for delays by grocery lobbying groups who argued the law would be too costly to implement, and who lobbied for delays, COOL has at last taken effect.

Now when you buy that apple, pick up a package of most meats, or bag a head of lettuce, you will be able to glean from either a label, sticker or notice of some kind what country it came from. Unfortunately, as of yet, the law does not extend to dairy products and with the milk scare from China, one can hope that calls for it to be expanded to include these products will be heeded.

The law also does not apply to organ meats such as heart, liver or kidney but how many households see those meats on the dinner table?The law also provides exceptions for processed foods such as bacon or everyone’s favorite, Spam, foods that are mixed together such as peas and carrots, but it’s likely to help consumers feel much safer in being able to avoid food from certain countries, especially during food poisoning outbreaks, and feel better able to buy American if they want to.

The law was established in the 2002 Farm Bill, but was successfully delayed by lobbying groups until now. Concern about unsafe imports from China and elsewhere finally overcame food industry efforts to delay it. It was amended in the 2008 Farm Bill to include more foods. Retailers have six months to get to know the regulations and come into compliance (so there’s a grace period here). Then the government is supposed to announce a final set of regulations incorporating seafood and shell fish regulations already in effect.

The law makes one think that lobbying efforts may be the reason for some of the strange distinctions in COOL. For instance macadamia nuts are included, but not walnuts. Did the walnuts have a better lobbyist than the macadamia nut lobbyist, or was the macadamia state senator absent when the Farm Bill was passed?

There are also exceptions in COOL for butchers, fish markets, restaurants, restaurants in hotels, school cafeterias, and small retailers. Additionally if spices, sauce or breading has been added, no labeling is required. Though not exactly food, the law also does not apply to pharmaceuticals, though there are calls to extend the law to them. Produce mixed in displays may simply be labeled as being “from two or more countries of origin.”

Consumers are likely going to be surprised when they see how much of their food is imported. “I’ve been eating what?” and “This comes from where?” will likely be heard by check out clerks as consumers stand in line and look over the new labels.

COOL has long been a goal of U.S. farmers and ranchers who believe that identifying foreign food imports may encourage shoppers and manufacturers to buy more U.S. foods. Meat packers, on the other side of the barbed wire, opposed COOL citing the costs it will involve in its implementation.

But as this country’s economic crisis grows, shoppers may be more and more inclined to buy American not just for safety but to help other Americans. Who nicer to help than American farmers?

Lawmakers and consumer groups are angry that the USDA seems to be attempting to evade congressional intent by allowing steaks and other meat cuts to be labeled with multiple country of origin labels. Congress only intended that exception for ground beef or for animals raised in more than one country. It has been said that there is a chasm of difference between the statutory language that was passed by Congress and the rule allowing multiple of country origin labels drafted by the USDA.

It has been suggested by some that it was meat packers who didn’t want the obligation to sort out cattle from Canada and Mexico, who are the reason why at least to start, beef may be labeled with just a North American country of origin label, as opposed to a U.S. country of origin label. Sadly, with this country’s lack of geographical knowledge (just watch Jay Leno when he asks people on the street where Canada is), many people will assume that “North American” means that the beef couldn’t possibly have come from outside the U.S., much less Mexico.

Consumer advocacy groups hope that the USDA will make rule changes as it receives more feedback. Thirty-one Senators, including Barack Obama have already written the Agriculture Secretary calling for more restrictive meat labeling rules. U.S. Cattlemen have also asked the USDA to address the loophole for beef and see that the statute is faithfully implemented.

There are other discrepancies with how the law will be applied. Fish caught off the coast of Alaska by a Chinese or Japanese owned ship may be labeled as a product of China or Japan. Beef raised in another country that spends 30 days in a feed lot in the U.S. can be labeled as coming from the U.S.

Retailers are given discretion how they label the food. Meat counters, for instance, may simply list all the countries where the meat is produced, or they can label each cut. Hamburger will still likely give the consumer pause as meat that is ground up may come from numerous countries.

Since all chicken and goat consumed in the U.S. comes from the U.S., the chicken and goat industries asked to be included in the law.

Once compliance goes into effect, businesses may be fined $1,000 per violation. The law is expected to cost at least $2 billion to implement.

If you have an agriculture, food & wine or agricultural issue in the Coachella Valley, San Diego, Palm Springs, Orange County or anywhere in Southern California, we have the knowledge and resources to be your Coachella Valley Agriculture Lawyers, and Palm Desert and Newport Beach Food & Wine Attorneys. For this reason, be sure to hire a California law firm with agriculture lawyers who can represent you from Brawley to El Centro, Palm Springs, Laguna, Newport and Huntington Beach, Corona del Mar, Anaheim, Irvine, La Jolla, Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez, Palm Desert, Yorba Linda, Carlsbad, San Diego, Costa Mesa, Westminster, and Murrieta, to Indian Wells and La Quinta.

If you have an agricultural or food and wine issue, and need to know your rights, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com  and learn how we can assist you. You can also call us to speak directly to Sebastian Gibson on the phone about your legal matter.

Few firms in the U.S. today practice in the field of Sports Business Law. It requires a knowledge of entertainment law, intellectual property, sports brand development, professional regulations, broadcast and media law, sports sponsorship, corporate finance, labor law contract law, merchandising, anti-trust law and litigation.In addition to having knowledge in those fields, it helps to have a strong background in international law, if not English law as well.

Clients at a sports law, law firm are sports team owners, cities, athletes, stadium management companies, and sponsors. You will be dealing with product manufacturers, the media, banks, the USPTO, sports organizations, arbitrators and the courts.

If you are a true sports aficionado, you will wish the business of sport had less to do with the law, but with each passing year it seems to have more rather than less.The rules referees must now live by often makes it useful if they are lawyers in their spare time.

As society becomes more and more concerned with fairness, we see greater use of replays, and less discretion given to the officials to call the game or to correct a mistaken call on their own.Sports teams and their lawyers must constantly be vigilant to protect their trademarks and branding and spend as much time promoting their team and their sport as running the day to day operation.Fortunately, in the end, the time and cost of sports business law attorneys are worth it, with the value of most sport teams rising year after year.

The opportunities to get into sports business law are limited. Many more law students take courses in sports law than will ever have the chance to practice the little they learn in law school.

If you are an athlete, or a business in the sports world and need the assistance of a sports lawyer, call us or visit our website at http://www.californiaattorneyslawyers.com to learn more about how we can assist you. Or call us to speak directly to Sebastian Gibson about your sports law, entertainment law, intellectual property, trademarks, sports brand development, professional regulations, broadcast and media law, sports sponsorships, corporate finance, labor law contract law, merchandising, anti-trust law and litigation.

 

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the first bill signed into law by the President paving the way for these lawsuits to require that equal pay be given to women, by way of seeking back pay awards for the difference they were paid and what men were paid for the same work.

 

If you have been discriminated against in your employment in California by receiving less pay for the same work performed by persons of the other gender, even though the statute of limitations has been extended by this Act, you still need to speak with a women’s rights lawyer or an employment attorney as soon as possible.

 

If you are a woman and you’ve been receiving less pay than men are receiving for the same work from the same employer, visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

 

Prior to the Act becoming law, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, women were required to file suit within 180 days after first being paid unfairly, even if the discrimination of being paid less than male workers in the same jobs continued.

 

And if a woman failed to discover that male workers were being paid more for the same work, a woman still could not hold her employer accountable if she didn’t learn of the unfairness and take action within 180 days of first being paid the lesser rate.

 

Under the Fair Pay Act of 2009 signed into law by President Obama, the statute of limitations of 180 days starts with each discriminatory paycheck, rather than when the employer starts to discriminate. So long as a woman in CA files her claim within 180 days of receiving any discriminatory paycheck, not just the first one, she is considered timely in bringing her claim.

 

An important aspect of the Act is that the effective date of the Act is retroactively set at May 28, 2007, which will allow it to apply to all compensation discrimination claims that have been filed on or after that date.

 

Women can sue for back pay awards for up to two years before she files her employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair Pay Act of 2009 does not change the two-year back pay limit.

 

The Fair Pay Act is a major victory for women in California who have long been discriminated against in the pay they receive for the same work that men perform and are paid substantially more in many places. It has been determined that women have been earning only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This Act will likely go a long way in addressing that unfairness, although it will likely require a good many lawsuits to hammer this home to employers who discriminate against women in their pay guidelines.

 

With the signing of this Act into law, initial victories in CA against an employer will likely lead to settlement of other lawsuits for co-employees who have been discriminated against in the same manner by the same employer.

 

Those who would say that the Act will lead to the employment of less women in such positions by employers fearful of such lawsuits simply don’t understand the anti-discrimination laws in this country and the greater risk employers would be taking if they adopted such a discriminatory stance in their hiring practices.

 

Even with the retroactive effect of the Act, employers in California may be slow to increase the salaries and hourly rates of their women employees until lawsuits begin to fly. Employers who have previously gotten away with discriminating against women in CA may only react in more numbers when they begin to feel the full weight of the law themselves or see large judgements against other employers who have discriminated against women.

 

Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us if you have been discriminated in your pay from an employer in California based on your being a woman, compared with the pay received by men for the same work

 

The votes in favor of the bill in the Senate included every Democratic senator except Senator Edward Kennedy who was absent because of his health, and all four Republican women senators. Every Republican male senator except Arlen Spector voted against it. If that won’t come back to haunt the Republicans in the next election, it is hard to imagine what else they will do to alienate themselves more from the women’s vote.

 

Under the Act, an unlawful practice occurs when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the decision or practice, or when a person is affected by the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits or other compensation is paid.

From Palm Springs to Palm Desert, San Diego to Orange County, from El Cajon and Chula Vista to Anaheim, Irvine, Newport Beach, Santa Ana and Anaheim, from Santa Barbara, Ventura, Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo to Yorba Linda, Rancho Cucamonga, Moreno Valley, Ontario, Fontana and Fullerton, from Riverside and San Bernardino to La Quinta, Indio and Coachella, the number of children being homeschooled has created a significant number of households in California.

Therefore, when in February 2008, a California court ruled that unless one of the parents of a homeschooled child had a credentialed teaching degree, their children being taught at home were truant, it shocked the families of these homeschooled children.

This ruling was thought to affect 200,000 kids in the State of California. Protests were raised from parents of these children to the Governor of the State.

On rehearing, the same judges made an equally stunning reversal of their opinion. Judge H. Walter Croskey, of the Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles wrote that so long as parents declare their home to be a private school, they can continue to homeschool their children, even without credentials.

Parents, especially Christian parents of homeschool children and homeschooling associations hailed the decision. Governor Schwarzenegger perhaps naively expressed his hope that this might settle the issue once and for all.

However, in his decision on the issue, Judge Croskey noted that while California impliedly allows parents to homeschool, California currently has no enforcement mechanism. He said, given the State’s compelling interest in educating its children, and the absence of an express statutory and regulatory framework for homeschooling in California, additional clarity would be helpful.

Parents of homeschooled children should realize that Judge Croskey’s opinion is an invitation to legislators to create statutes and regulations in this area as well as a mechanism to enforce the rules they set for homeschooling.A

s a lawyer who must constantly read new laws, parents should know too that wherever there are legislators, they are busy creating new regulations.

Governor Schwarzenegger’s hope notwithstanding, the court’s ruling did anything but abdicate the right to make further rulings. After first holding against homeschooling and then completely reversing course and admitting that it did so simply on an implied allowance by the State to allow it, the next court to review the subject could very well rule completely differently.

For the moment, however, parents teaching their children at home can breathe a sigh of relief. How long that relaxed atmosphere will last, however, will yet be up to the courts and the state legislature. 

If you have an education legal matter of any kind, we have the knowledge and resources to be your Moreno Valley Education Lawyers, and Chula Vista Education Attorneys. For this reason, be sure to hire a California law firm with education lawyers who can represent you from Palm Springs, Rancho Cucamonga, Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach and Huntington Beach, Corona del Mar, Anaheim, Irvine, La Jolla, El Cajon, San Bernardino, Santa Barbara, Temecula, Palm Desert, Yorba Linda, Carlsbad, San Diego, Costa Mesa, Westminster, and Murrieta, to Indian Wells and La Quinta.

If you have an education legal matter of any kind, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com  and learn how we can assist you. You can also call us to speak directly to Sebastian Gibson on the phone about your legal matter.

In the midst of America’s financial meltdown and on the same weekend as Congress put together a $700 billion bailout, Congress did away with a 26 year ban on offshore oil drilling to the dismay of environmentalists. The Drill Now movement and chants of “Drill, Baby, Drill” may have won a small skirmish on this environmental issue, but California will have the last word.

Despite the ban on offshore oil drilling, it is believed that such drilling, at least off the coast of California is unlikely to occur for many years, if ever. Democrats in Congress are already vowing to reinstate the ban when a new Congress takes their seats in four months. And political opposition, marine protection laws and almost certain lawsuits by environmental groups in California make offshore oil drilling an unlikely event.

First, there is a general belief of Californians, including the Governor, that the California coastline is an international treasure, not to mention a draw to tourists from around the world. Few politicians in the state would dare to jeopardize that treasure.

Second, a law passed by former Governor Pete Wilson already bans all offshore oil drilling in California out to three miles from shore.

Third, there are 300 miles of national marine sanctuaries along the California coast which ban oil drilling.

Fourth, nearly every coastal county in the State of California has enacted ordinances banning new oil pipelines, oil terminals and tanks in the State.

Fifth, environmental groups are already vowing to file lawsuits, and they could be joined by the California Coastal Commission.

While California has around 30 oil platforms off the coast of Santa Barbara, Ventura and Long Beach that were built in the 1950s, no new oil platforms have been built in over 50 years.

It is estimated that California has at least 10.5 billion barrels of oil offshore – about a year and a half of the nation’s yearly supply. This is comparable to the estimate of oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

But if anything, despite the oil crisis and the financial crisis, in light of global warming and calls for investment in alternative energies, Californians are becoming more and more environmentally aware. Any politician running on any platform (oil or not) based on drilling offshore at a risk to the California scenic coastline, will have a hard time being elected.

If you have an oil, natural resources, energy or environmental law issue in San Diego, Newport Beach, Irvine, Orange County, La Jolla, in the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Palm Springs or anywhere in Southern California, we have the knowledge and resources to be your California Energy Lawyer and your Ventura Environmental Attorney. Be sure to hire a California law firm with environmental law experience who can serve areas such as Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Anaheim, Irvine, Beverly Hills, Malibu, Newport Beach, Carlsbad, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Fullerton, Del Mar, San Diego, Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Buena Park, La Jolla, Oxnard, Ventura, La Quinta, and Santa Barbara so you are properly represented.

If you have a water law, oil, energy, natural resources or environmental dispute of any kind, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com  and learn how we can assist you.

Few firms in the U.S. today practice in the field of Sports Business Law. It requires a knowledge of entertainment law, intellectual property, sports brand development, professional regulations, broadcast and media law, sports sponsorship, corporate finance, labor law contract law, merchandising, anti-trust law and litigation.In addition to having knowledge in those fields, it helps to have a strong background in international law, if not English law as well.

Clients at a sports law, law firm are sports team owners, cities, athletes, stadium management companies, and sponsors. You will be dealing with product manufacturers, the media, banks, the USPTO, sports organizations, arbitrators and the courts.

If you are a true sports aficionado, you will wish the business of sport had less to do with the law, but with each passing year it seems to have more rather than less.The rules referees must now live by often makes it useful if they are lawyers in their spare time.

As society becomes more and more concerned with fairness, we see greater use of replays, and less discretion given to the officials to call the game or to correct a mistaken call on their own.Sports teams and their lawyers must constantly be vigilant to protect their trademarks and branding and spend as much time promoting their team and their sport as running the day to day operation.Fortunately, in the end, the time and cost of sports business law attorneys are worth it, with the value of most sport teams rising year after year.

The opportunities to get into sports business law are limited. Many more law students take courses in sports law than will ever have the chance to practice the little they learn in law school.

If you are an athlete, or a business in the sports world and need the assistance of a sports lawyer, call us or visit our website at http://www.californiaattorneyslawyers.com to learn more about how we can assist you. Or call us to speak directly to Sebastian Gibson about your sports law, entertainment law, intellectual property, trademarks, sports brand development, professional regulations, broadcast and media law, sports sponsorships, corporate finance, labor law contract law, merchandising, anti-trust law and litigation.

If you have a legal issue involving art, antiquities or have a claim to a maritime shipwreck, sunken or buried treasure under California, martitme, or international law, visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

Maritime Shipwreck Treasure

Recently, a number of prized shipwrecks have been found, one as recently as February 2009 when a U.S. salvage company, Odyssey Marine Exploration found a prized British warship believed to be the HMS Victory, lost in 1744, which just may hold four tons of gold. The HMS Victory discovery may solve one of the most intriguing naval mysteries in history. Why did this ship with one of the most famous admirals of his time, disappear with a crew of 1,100 men with one of the largest shipments of gold and silver, including four tons of gold coins, and why has it eluded treasure hunters for so long?

Believed sunk near the Channel Islands by a fierce storm that separated the Victory from other ships that broke through a French blockade at Lisbon and were returning home, the Victory (a later version which would be commanded by Admiral Nelson) had the sons of some of Britain’s most influential families on board when it sunk with perhaps the largest collection of bronze cannon as well.

In a less important find of another English shipwreck, Odyssey negotiated a deal whereby it received 80 percent of the first $50 million salvaged, and then a sliding scale up to $500 million, after which the profits were split 50-50. Since that time, however, the British government adopted a set of UNESCO guidelines that will complicate any hope of a similar arrangement.

Two years earlier, the same company, Odyssey, located the mystery ship, the Black Swan” believed to be a Spanish galleon, the Nuestra Senora de las Mercedes y las Animas, that sank off the coast of Portugal, with seventeen tons of gold and silver coins.

The Spanish government has sued Odyssey in a Florida federal court on the basis that it never abandoned the shipwreck. One could say, they simply lost it for a few hundred years. The British government is believed to be negotiating with Odyssey about a collaboration to salvage the warship.

Maritime Shipwreck Treasure Law

What’s important in sunken treasure cases is where the treasure is found, whether the ship was owned by a government or a private entity, and whether there has been any dishonest conduct by the treasure hunters.

Most countries and their maritime lawyers claim anything to be within 12 nautical miles from their coast as their territorial waters. Additionally, if the ship was owned by the state or government, Law of the Sea Conventions come into play, which again allow the state or foreign country to determine what compensation the treasure hunter is entitled to. Finally, if the treasure hunter or salvage company has been guilty of any fraud or dishonest conduct, they can be deprived of any or all of any payment due them. Entering a foreign state’s territorial waters to look for a sunken ship counts as such misconduct.

International Maritime Law and The Law of the Sea

Under international maritime law and the law of the sea, if an owner abandons a vessel, it can be claimed by the finder. When a vessel has not been abandoned, it can still be salvaged by the finder and is usually compensated by the sovereign state claiming ownership. The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 encourages cooperation between sovereign governments and states and private entities.

The rule of “finders, keepers” applies only where the previous owner of a ship is found to have abandoned its property. Under various state laws, treaties and conventions, however, the positions taken by most governments, including the U.S., is that the state only abandons its sovereignty over, and title to, sunken U.S. warships by affirmative act. Mere passage of time or lack of positive assertions of right are insufficient to establish such abandonment. Thus, France’s claim with respect to the Griffin (or Griffon) that it never abandoned its interests in the ship.

Sorting out these competing claims can take awhile. In 2001, the Great Lakes Exploration LLC found a 17th Century ship, the Griffin, in northern Lake Michigan, near Wisconsin. One might think that Michigan or Wisconsin would have good claim to the ship. But just in January 2009, France filed papers with the court hearing the case that claims the ship expedition was undertaken on behalf of the French Crown and was not a private enterprise.

The Richest Shipwreck Ever Found

And then, just when you thought the scale of these discoveries could not be topped, they have been, at least monetarily, with the discovery of a British merchant ship, sunk by a Nazi submarine, that was transporting just goods from a European port, to the U.S. with repayment to the U.S. Treasury for the Lend-Lease Program that gave support to the Allied war effort. And what was this ship, code named the Blue Baron carrying? Just the world’s richest shipwreck cargo ever. The ship is thought to have been carrying a $3.7 billion cargo of gold, platinum and diamonds.

Believed to have been found about 40 miles off the coast of Guyana by Sub Sea Research, a U.S.-based marine research and recovery firm, the shipwreck will be the richest find ever. It was reportedly carrying at least ten tons of gold bullion, 70 tons of platinum, one and a half tons of industrial diamonds and 16 million carats of gem quality diamonds.

So far, no counter claims have been filed in the federal admiralty court case relating to the find, but it is likely that a number of countries may make claims to possessions on board that originated in those countries, including Russia which, like Britain, shipped large quantities of precious goods to the U.S. in payment for the war effort by the U.S. The question for historians who may have some influence in this case, is whether the Soviet Union paid subsequently for the Lend-Lease war effort after the ship was sunk.

Stolen Art and Antiquities Law

The law with respect to stolen art as opposed to lost shipwrecks is quite different, but no less complicated. Some countries view the movement of stolen works of art as the smuggling out of its country of a “national treasure,” even if it was previously, privately owned. Other countries view the contents of tombs and other relics to be the property of the state and their taking as “theft.” Another view of situations in which a work of art is previously owned by one person and then appears in the collection of another, is viewed as a further variation of theft. In this last variation, most legal systems provide protection to the bona fide purchaser, unless the property is stolen.

Unfortunately, the laundering of stolen works of art is facilitated by the lack of consistency of state laws and international law, statutes of limitations, the bona fide purchaser defense and the burden of proof on the person claiming that the art work was stolen.

Under a common law rule in Anglo-American law, a person cannot give what he or she does not have. Thus, a thief cannot convey good title to a stolen work of art, even where there have been several subsequent purchases by bona fide and unsuspecting persons acting in good faith. However, the vast majority of western countries with civil law systems accord protection to the purchaser in good faith of stolen art. While there are international treaties and conventions which are gaining supporters, for the most part, it has been said that international law on the illegal sale of art works and cultural treasures is not retroactive.

Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us if you have an issue involving stolen art or any art issue, maritime shipwreck sunken treasure, or with regard to international or cultural antiquity treasures.

The FBI now maintains a National Stolen Art File (NSAF) which is a computerized index of stolen art and cultural property reported to the FBI by law enforcement agencies throughout the United States and the world. The primary goal of the NSAF is to serve as a tool to assist investigators in art and cultural artifact theft cases and to function as an analytical database providing law enforcement officials with information concerning art theft.

It has been reported that the trade in illegal art and antiquities in the U.S. is exceeded only by the trade of guns and drugs. It is believed that most of the stolen art in the world (over 100,000 objects since the 1980s) comes to London or to the U.S. with much of it bought secretly by persons for their private collections, for a fraction of their market value.

If you need legal assistance in connection with any type of art, treasure or antiquity, look to our California art, antiquity, maritime and international law firm for representation in the U.S. and throughout the world.

 

After the driest spring in 88 years, in June 2008 Governor Schwarzenegger formally declared California to be in a drought and nine counties in the Central Valley to be in a state of emergency after two years of below-average rainfall and six dry years that have killed off fish populations, driven down agricultural land values and required severe reductions in water usage in the Central Valley. The declaration, while bad enough, still stops short of a statewide water emergency which, if declared, will likely carry with it mandatory water rationing.

 

Efforts to capture water have been hampered by evaporation of snow packs due to climate change, but snowpack water content this winter was only 67 percent of average. California’s water shortage was compounded by a federal court order limiting the pumping of water from the San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta to protect a species of fish.

 

And so in June 2008 the State of California formed a Water Bank to buy water from farmers upstream from the Delta and from local water agencies and to make it available for sale to public water systems and private water systems who may otherwise run short of water next year. Agencies buying the water will have to agree to a 20 percent reduction overall in water usage. It is believed that the Water Bank will stave off mandatory water rationing.

 

Under the plan, water purchased from northern farmers and water agencies will be shipped south via the State’s canals.

 

Currently, there is no end in sight to California’s dry conditions. While there is a $9.3 billion plan in the State legislature to address the state’s delta environmental problems and expand the state’s water works, it has been tied up while the legislators haggled over a budget.

 

A bill to require Californian’s to cut water usage by 20 percent recently passed the Assembly and the bill puts the onus on residents as opposed to farmers.

 

In the midst of this water crisis, an amazing 100 facilities are bottling water in California, using California’s precious water supply. An Assembly Bill to measure the amount of water being bottled is an attempt to learn just how bad the abuse of these water supplies is on top of the pollution and harm to the environment caused by these facilities and the plastic water bottles, most of which are not recycled.

 

The Department of Public Resources estimates that more than 1 billion gallons of bottled water are sold in California each year. 

 

If you have a water law issue in San Diego, Newport Beach, Irvine, Orange County, La Jolla, in the Inland Empire, Los Angeles, Palm Springs or anywhere in Southern California, we have the knowledge and resources to be your California Water Lawyer and your Santa Barbara Environmental Attorney. Be sure to hire a California law firm with environmental law experience who can serve areas such as Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Anaheim, Irvine, Beverly Hills, Malibu, Newport Beach, Carlsbad, Corona del Mar, Laguna Beach, Huntington Beach, Santa Ana, Rancho Cucamonga, Ontario, Fullerton, Del Mar, San Diego, Orange County, San Luis Obispo, Buena Park, La Jolla, Oxnard, Ventura, La Quinta, and Santa Barbara so you are properly represented.

 

If you have a water law or environmental dispute of any kind, call the Law Offices of R. Sebastian Gibson, or visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com  and learn how we can assist you.