AirTalk sits down with former state senator Tony Mendoza after he resigned following a sexual harassment investigation that found he “more likely than not” made inappropriate advances in Sacramento. We also dive into a SCOTUS case that could significantly affect public sector unions; review this week’s releases on FilmWeek; and more.
Tony Mendoza explains why he resigned from the California state Senate
California state senator Tony Mendoza resigned Thursday from the Legislature after an independent investigation found that he "more likely than not" harassed several women he worked with during his tenure at the state Capitol.
Mendoza, who represents the Artesia area, was suspended last fall when the harassment charges came to light.
He denies the charges and his resignation letter called into question the integrity of the investigation. The resignation came after Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León introduced Senate Resolution 85 on Wednesday, which cites the house's zero-tolerance sexual harassment policy and the results of the investigation as grounds to expel Sen. Tony Mendoza.
Mendoza joined us on AirTalk to discuss the allegations.
It is with great pain that I resign today from the Senate. This secretive investigation, with no Due Process and Disparate Treatment, left me with no other choice... (read my letter)
— Tony Mendoza (@MrTonyMendoza)
Though he questioned the integrity of the investigation in his resignation letter, he said he was not given an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations.
"I think things need to be changing in the workplace, and I agree with that. Now, if I ever, ever made anyone feel uncomfortable, and I would have — I apologize for my behavior, because that is not who I am, that's not what I'm about. And I wanted to make sure that was clear," he said.
We reached out to California's Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León but he declined to join us. He sent us this statement.
Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, another state lawmaker who represents part of L.A. County, is also on leave amid accusations of sexual harassment.
Guest:
Tony Mendoza, former California state senator (D-Artesia); he tweets
A check in on school security protocol after footage reveals armed Parkland officer never went into the building
The armed school resource deputy at a high school in Parkland, Florida, did not intervene during the shooting that left 17 people dead, according to the local sheriff.
Deputy Scot Peterson resigned Thursday after being suspended without pay pending an internal investigation, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel said.
Peterson allegedly waited outside the school building for about four minutes as the shooting unfolded last week. The deputy -- who was armed and in uniform at the time of the shooting -- never went in after taking a position on the west side of the building, Israel said at a Thursday afternoon news conference.
So what are school security protocols? To what extent are they armed and how are they trained to react in these situations? And what can schools do to make security more effective?
Guests:
Jeff Solomon, director of the schools division for D-PREP, where he does critical incident management for the public and private sector including K-12 schools in Southern California
Alon Stivi, CEO of Direct Measures International, a security consultancy, tactical training and protective services company that works with schools; he also runs an active shooter survival course which is funded by the Department of Homeland Security
The upcoming Supreme Court case that could have major implications for the future of public sector unions
Next week, the nine justices on the Supreme Court of the United States will hear a case that could change the relationship between public sector unions and the workers they represent in more than 20 states, including California.
Oral arguments begin at 10 a.m. EST in Janus v. American Federation State, County, and Municipal Employees, which asks whether a 1977 Supreme Court ruling which is still law, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, should be overturned. In that case, the justices decided that while no one can be forced to join a public employees’ union, non-members can be required to pay so-called “agency fees,” which help defray the cost of collective bargaining. The idea is essentially that since non-union members directly benefit from the union in terms of their working conditions, wages and pensions, they should be required to contribute to the cost of negotiations even if they’re not in the union.
Plaintiff Mark Janus and his attorneys say that not only should non-union employees not have to pay the fee just to work for the state, but that requiring them to do so violates the First Amendment because, since Janus did not agree with AFSCME’s union politics, paying “agency fees” was unconstitutional compelled speech.
Those arguing against Mr. Janus say if the court finds in his favor, it could have a huge impact on public sector unions’ revenue stream, and union memberships would drop. They also argue that “Abood” is already law, and since states have learned to work around it and unions have negotiated many contracts under its rules, that now is not the time to change it.
The Supreme Court has tackled this question within the last several years, most recently in 2016 in Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association, in which justices looked like they might overturn Abood. Ultimately, they ended up deadlocked in a 4-4 split after Justice Antonin Scalia passed away before the case could be decided.
Guests:
Jacob Huebert, attorney representing the plaintiff, Mark Janus, in the SCOTUS case, Janus v. AFSCME that will be argued Monday; he is also the director of litigation at the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit that focuses on protecting economic liberty and private property rights
Matt Bodie, professor of employment and labor law at Saint Louis University; he co-authored an amicus brief in support of AFSCME
Yvonne Walker, president of SEIU Local 1000, the Sacramento-based branch of the labor union representing many public employee workers
FilmWeek: ‘Annihilation,’ ‘Every Day,’ ‘Game Night’ and more
Larry Mantle and KPCC film critics Claudia Puig and Peter Rainer review this weekend’s new movie releases.
"Annihilation" in wide release
"Game Night" in wide release
"Every Day" in wide release
"The Young Karl Marx" at Laemmle's Royal & Laemmle's Playhouse
"The Boy Downstairs" at Laemmle's Monica Film Center
"The Cured" at Nuart Theatre
"Half Magic" at Vintage Los Feliz
"Survivors Guide to Prison" at Arena Cinelounge Hollywood
"Curvature" at Laemmle's Music Hall
Critics' Hits
Claudia: "Survivors Guide to Prison"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfUh5wstN04
Peter: "Annihilation" & "The Cured"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89OP78l9oF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSutgzDY_I4
Mixed Feelings
Claudia: "Game Night"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNtLIcyjsnI
Peter: "The Boy Downstairs"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zn8PhvQumE
Misses
Claudia: "Every Day" & "Half Magic"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqoAMfe_rPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgdFb7zQB_4
Peter: "The Young Karl Marx"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVTDoZLssg8
Guests:
Claudia Puig, film critic for KPCC and president of the Los Angeles Film Critics Association; she tweets
Peter Rainer, film critic for KPCC and the Christian Science Monitor
Age before beauty: IMDb sees success with age discrimination lawsuit
On Tuesday, a federal judge declared a California law censoring IMDB from publishing its subscribers’ ages a violation of the first amendment.
The short-lived state law AB 1687 went into effect last year, and was intended to protect actors – primarily women – from facing age discrimination in Hollywood.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria gave a few different reasons for his decision, but focused heavily on the opinion that states cannot prevent facts from being published based on their potential for discrimination. Specifically, IMDB cannot be restricted from publishing facts such as a person’s age since no discriminatory direction is attached to the data.
According to the Los Angeles Times, SAG-AFTRA, a proponent of the law, intends to appeal the judge’s decision, stating he failed to understand that “discrimination is facilitated by IMDb’s insistence on publishing performers’ age information without their consent.”
But does the appeal hold a chance for success? And how effective would the law really be in preventing discrimination if it went back into effect?
Guests:
Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, general counsel and chief operating officer for SAG-AFTRA
Royal Oakes, partner at the Los Angeles offices of Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP and general counsel for the Radio and Television News Association of Southern California