September 2013 Vol. 13, Issue 7
Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker 
News from the Oakland City Attorney's Office
About:
  
  
Quick Links:
  
  
Video of the Week:
      
Join Our Mailing List
Greetings!
BJP      
In our monthly newsletter, we provide important information about the work of the Oakland City Attorney's Office -- plus updates on legal issues and matters that impact Oakland residents and businesses.
 
This month: Oakland stands up for equal opportunity for young people; recent community events & developments; updates on important legal cases involving the City of Oakland.
  

As always, I look forward to your comments, thoughts and questions about how we are conducting the City's business.

 

Very truly yours,

 

 

Barbara J. Parker

Oakland City Attorney

 

Oakland Stands Up for Equal Opportunity

City weighs in on affirmative action case with consequences for CA

 

On August 30, 2013, Oakland joined other cities, state attorneys general and the University of California in opposing a Michigan law that prohibits consideration of race and gender in public education, public employment and government contracting.

 

Michigan's affirmative action ban is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the outcome of this case is important for Oakland, for our state and for the entire nation. (Schuette, Attorney Gen. Of Michigan v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action)

 

Michigan's ban, Proposition 2, mirrors California's own affirmative action ban - Proposition 209. Along with other jurisdictions, we are asking the Supreme Court to uphold an appellate court decision that Michigan's law violates the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Ideally, the justices will strike down Michigan's law with a ruling that will lay the groundwork to invalidate similar laws in California, Arizona, Washington and other states.

 

This case is particularly important as it follows on the heels of this year's Supreme Court ruling on the University of Texas' affirmative action policy, which made it next to impossible to consider race as one of many plus factors in college admissions.

 

The outcome of this case also is critical for Oakland and other cities with large populations of young people who do not have meaningful or equal educational opportunities at the primary, middle or high school levels, not to mention equal opportunity to attend college.

 

For example, it continues to be extremely difficult for an African American student in Oakland to graduate from high school with the course credits required to even enroll in Cal State or University of California schools.

 

The graduation rate in Oakland public high schools is improving, but it is still appallingly low - this year, the graduation rate for African American students was about 53%, according to OUSD.

 

But of the African American students who earned a diploma this year, only about 29% graduated with the course credits they need just to enroll in our own state's university system; these are public universities funded with our tax dollars. In contrast, the percentage of students who graduate from Piedmont High with those requirements is close to 100%.

 

Prohibiting consideration of race and gender in university admissions only perpetuates the unconscionable opportunity gap that we see in our public schools - a gap that so often breaks down along racial lines. Clearly, we have a long way to go before we have a level playing field.

 

As the University of California president wrote in a brief in this case: "More than 15 years after Proposition 209 barred consideration of race in admissions decisions ... the University of California still struggles to enroll a student body that encompasses the broad racial diversity of the state."

 

For more information, see the amicus (friend of the court) brief Oakland and other jurisdictions filed in the Supreme Court.    

  

Events & Developments
City Attorney's Office in the Community

 

1. New Bay Bridge Bike Path

 

bikesWonderful news for Oakland: the long-awaited Bay Bridge bike path has opened. For the first time, we can bike, walk or run on the eastern span of the Bay Bridge. Once the path is finished it will run from Oakland to Treasure Island.  

 

I was elated to participate in the inaugural ride on the path, which is named after Alex Zuckerman, the founder of the East Bay Bicycle Coalition. (See photo with Public Works Director Brooke Levin and Police Chief Sean Whent assembling at City Hall).

 

The view from the path is stunning. It is a fabulous addition to Oakland's biking and walking opportunities and it connects to the SF Bay Trail, a planned recreational corridor which upon completion will encircle the Bay with a 500-mile network of bike and hiking trails and connect shorelines of all nine Bay Area counties. Kudos to the East Bay Bicycle Coalition, which was instrumental in lobbying for the bike path to be included in the bridge design and linked to the Bay Trail.

 

  

2. Oakland Pride
  Pride

The annual Oakland Pride festival was spectacular this year. It was especially moving for me to celebrate Pride in my hometown this year when we saw historic advancements in civil rights for the LGBT community. And many thanks to Mayor Quan and the East Bay Stonewall Democratic Club for hosting the 1st Annual Pride Breakfast (see photo with the Mayor and state Assemblymember Nancy Skinner).

  
  
3. Helping Oaklanders Secure Jobs through St. Vincent de Paul's Job Training Programs  
  

This month, I and other volunteers from the City Attorney's Office worked with the job training program at the Society of St. Vincent de Paul of Alameda County (located on San Pablo Avenue in Oakland). Five of our attorneys conducted mock interviews to help prepare graduates of the St. Vincent de Paul job training programs for job interviews. This is the third time we've volunteered for this great program, which helps Oaklanders, including some who are coming back to the work force after being incarcerated, to secure gainful employment.

  

For more information about volunteering for this great organization, go to: http://www.svdp-alameda.org/

 
interview
 
Legal Briefs
Updates on Major Cases Involving the City of Oakland
                       

Baker, et al. v. State of California Highway Patrol, et al.

 

In January 2013, Gilda Baker filed a $13.5 million lawsuit in the Northern District of California federal court against the City of Oakland and the State of California Highway Patrol (as well as two individual CHP officers). Ms. Baker's lawsuit stemmed from the death of her son and the investigation that was conducted after his death. Ms. Baker alleged that in 2005 CHP chased her son while he was riding a motorcycle on the freeway, struck him, and caused him to crash and suffer fatal injuries. Ms. Baker also alleged that the City failed to investigate his death and conspired to cover up the true nature of the accident. The City moved to dismiss Ms. Baker's claims. The Court held that Ms. Baker had no standing to pursue claims for anyone other than herself. As for the constitutional claims that Ms. Baker properly asserted under 42 U.S.C §§ 1983 and 1985, the Court found that they were all untimely. Importantly, even if Ms. Baker's claims had been timely asserted, the Court held that they were substantively without merit.

 

 

Bruder v. City of Oakland

 

In 2009, Bruder LLC filed an administrative appeal of penalties and fees assessed against property it owned on Shattuck Avenue. The City of Oakland previously declared the property a public nuisance. Fees and penalties on the property totaled approximately $35,000. After the administrative appeal hearing in June 2010, the hearing officer issued a written decision that limited Bruder's civil penalty to $3,000. Bruder interpreted this decision as limiting his entire financial liability on the property to $3,000. The City disagreed and maintained that the decision required Bruder to pay the non-penalty fees assessed against the property as well as the $3,000 civil penalty. In December 2010, Bruder filed a petition for writ of mandate against the City in the Alameda County Superior Court challenging the penalties and fees assessed against it. The Court agreed that the administrative appeal limited the civil penalty, but not Bruder's total financial liability, to $3,000. Bruder appealed the trial court judgment, and the Court of Appeal recently ruled in the City's favor.