This morning’s Los Angeles Times has an article about Miles Locker’s departure from the DLSE:

In a 22-page complaint detailing Locker’s dismissal, labor standard
officials charged him with trying to undermine his supervisors’ efforts
to interpret state wage and hour laws. The complaint, relying in part
on e-mails taken from Locker’s office computer, called him disloyal
because he "secretly communicated … disagreements" with his supervisors
to lawyers outside the government.

The complaint also accused Locker, who is appealing his firing to the
state Personnel Board, of making comments last year that ridiculed
then-Labor Commissioner Donna Dell.

AB 1912 - Midemeanor to terminate an employee who brings a firearm to work in her car.  (Co-sponsored by Dick Cheney)

AB 2095 - Modifies sexual harassment education requirements.

AB 2186 - Bill to penalize OT misclassifications.

AB 2217 - Individual alternative workweeks.

AB 2327 - Farm labor contractor rule changes.

AB 2334 - Janitoral service contractor rule changes.

AB 2371 - Invalidate arbitration agreements that cover FEHA violations.

AB 2388 - Would explicitly add litigation costs to ee indemnification under LC 2802.

AB 2536 - OT for in-house workers

SB 1188, 1189 - Prohibits payment of wages without a free way to cash.

If I’ve missed any, please post in the comments.

I couldn’t skip this one.  Professor Suja Thomas has written a law review claiming that summary judgment under Rule 56 violates the Seventh Amendment because no similar procedure existed under the Common Law.

Under the Common Law in 1791, there was no procedure for the judge to determine the facts.  Of course, there were demurrers of various flavors.  It seems clear from her own paper that regardless of who read the facts and who read the law, judges did have the power to throw out cases.

I’m not seeing the importance of this circular law/fact distinction in the question.  The question to me is simply whether a judge can throw out a case.  Under Common Law, he could.

Furthermore, lets not forget, the judge acts as a gatekeeper for the evidence even in a jury trial, so Thomas’s assertion that his consideration of the evidence is some strange animal doesn’t fly.  Plus, summary judgment does not allow the judge to "weigh" the evidence.   Strictly speaking, if there is a dispute of a material fact, trial goes forward. 

In sum, there may not be an exactly analogous power under Common Law, but there are no new powers given to the judge; it’s just a hodge podge of other existing powers.

Quite frankly, this article defines "academic" in both the literal and pejorative senses of the word.  Rule 56 will stand one way or another.

As soon as I get a few spare moments, I will begin tracking the private employer-related bills in the California legislature. Stay tuned.

Employer’s failure to post an undertaking pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 98.2(b)
does not deprive trial court of jurisdiction to consider employer’s appeal of
labor commissioner’s award in favor of employee.

The Oakland Tribune has quoted an entry on this blog by Steve Chanley:

San Luis Obispo attorney Steven Chanley, a shareholder with the
Employer Advocates Group law firm, blogged about the case last
September: "It is difficult not to be sympathetic to the plight of
those who must rely legitimately on mind-altering drugs to mitigate
their physical pain. However, it seems a non-starter to argue that the
employment laws require an accommodation in the form of permitting
illegal drug use."