News from Oakland City Attorney
Barbara J. Parker
|
|
This month:
- Resources for protecting victims of domestic and other interpersonal violence during the Shelter in Place order
- Oakland City Attorney & Public Rights Project file U.S. Supreme Court brief defending access to contraceptive care
- City Council unanimously passes Resolution co-sponsored by City Attorney, calling for measures to protect health, safety and lives of detainees and inmates in Alameda County jails and facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic
Dear Friends and Fellow Oaklanders:
We are continuing our work to keep the City running and protect our community during these unsettling and traumatic times. I am hopeful that our community's resiliency, toughness and willingness to help others will see us through this crisis, and I wish the best for you and yours. As always, I look forward to hearing your thoughts about the work we are doing on behalf of the City of Oakland.
|
|
Resources for protecting victims of domestic and other interpersonal violence during the Shelter-in-Place order
This month, Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley and I jointly issued a Frequently Asked Questions ("FAQ") guide to information and resources about protecting victims of domestic and other interpersonal violence during the Shelter-in-Place order.
The FAQ makes it clear that residents are allowed to leave their homes if their home is not safe, that domestic violence shelters and support services are still operating, and that you can still seek a temporary restraining order ("TRO") while the Shelter in Place order is in effect.
The Alameda County Family Justice Center is open and ready to serve crisis needs for victims of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault and exploitation, child abuse, child abduction, elder and dependent abuse, and human trafficking.
Staff will be at work, ready to assist those in critical need, and will be able to quickly link individuals to resources for restraining orders sand other emergency services.
|
|
Council unanimously passes resolution co-sponsored by City Attorney Parker & Councilmembers Bas, McElhaney, and Taylor calling on Alameda County officials to implement measures to protect health, safety and lives of individuals held in Alameda County jails and facilities
In last month’s newsletter, I advised you of
my March 23rd letter
calling upon Alameda County’s Sheriff and Chief Probation Officer to implement nine fundamental measures to protect the health and safety of detainees and inmates at Alameda County facilities, including evaluating at-risk inmates for possible early release and ensuring all inmates have access to soap, hand sanitizer, and other protections to prevent infection. The letter also endorsed Alameda County Public Defender Brendon Woods’ recommendation that the Sheriff and Chief Probation Officer release all inmates who have six months or less to serve on their sentences. These measures also serve to protect our community as the City of Oakland is the largest city in Alameda County, and many who are held or work in these facilities are Oaklanders.
The Sheriff responded as follows: “I am busy with our operations center trying to do our very best to protect and mitigate this emergency. I do not have time to address your listed issues. Thank you, but I hope you can focus on your city while I focus on the protection of our community.”
On April 21
st
the City Council unanimously passed a resolution that I co-sponsored with Councilmembers Bas, McElhaney, and Taylor to urge the Alameda County sheriff’s office, probation department, and other county officials to implement the measures I recommended in my March letter, as well as to endorse the Alameda County Public Defender’s urgent proposal that county officials immediately release all inmates with six months or less remaining to serve on their sentences.
The Council’
s
resolution highlights the grave circumstances at hand and the pressing actions t
hat are
necessary to protect the health and safety of our community.
Download and read the resolution here.
|
|
Oakland City Attorney & Public Rights Project file U.S. Supreme Court brief defending access to contraceptive care
This month, a national coalition of cities and counties led by Oakland, the Public Rights Project and the City of St. Paul, Minnesota filed an amicus ("friend-of-the-court") brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down two Trump administration rules that would permit employers to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees and plan beneficiaries based on so-called religious and moral objections.
Thirty-two cities and counties from across the country joined the brief, including the cities of San Francisco, Stockton and Alameda.
The Supreme Court is reviewing a lower court decision that invalidated two rules the Trump administration initially issued in October 2017 and finalized in November 2018. The rules establish religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s (“ACA”) contraceptive mandate. Under implementing rules of the ACA’s Women’s Health Amendment, employer-sponsored insurance plans – which provide the majority of private insurance coverage in the country – must cover all FDA-approved contraception at no cost to plan beneficiaries.
The Trump administration has wasted an inordinate amount of precious time and resources on reducing access to reproductive health care. This administration’s campaign to deprive individuals of access to contraceptives is a stark reminder of Trump’s callous disregard for the health of all Americans and for our fundamental constitutional rights.
Of course, it is immoral to deny people basic health care coverage. This campaign once again reveals Trump’s allegiance and blind obeisance to the interests of our nation’s most cynical corporations and sanctimonious politicians, rather than to performing his duty to uphold the constitution and protect the health and safety of all Americans.
|
|
In Brief
I am pleased to report that we won an important lawsuit against the City last month in
Horizon Projects Consulting Corp. v. City of Oakland
, Alameda County Superior Court Case Nos. RG18933686 and RG 18933347. These lawsuits arose after an information technology (“IT”) contractor, who the City paid in full for a City contract, sued the City claiming it failed to pay the contractor for additional work that the City never authorized. The court granted the City’s motions to dismiss the lawsuits and awarded the City its attorney’s fees in one case. The City will seek attorney’s fees in the second case as well; the process has been delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
