P. Casey Pitts

Yale Law Journal.^{[3][failed verification}

associate at the firm from 2009 to 2017.^[2]

substitute teachers. In the spring of 2010, the district again faced a budget shortfall. It proposed a second RIF that would include permanent as well as probationary teachers.^[4][5][6]

Ralphs Grocery Company. Beginning in October 2008, non-employee representatives of respondent, defendant United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 8, began an informational picket line in front of the Foods Co store. Allegations included the picketing involved carrying placards, distributing leaflets, and attempting to engage Foods Co shoppers in conversations to inform them that Foods Co workers did not receive the benefits they would under a union contract. In addition, there were allegations of confrontations between picketers and store employees and of occasional aggressive efforts by picketers to give handbills to customers who were not willing to receive them. Alleging that the picketers refused to obey the rules appellant had established for presence on the property, and alleging that the police department was unwilling to remove the picketers from the property, appellant filed a complaint in February 2009 for declaratory and injunctive relief and for damages arising from respondent's picketers' continued presence.^[7][8]

consumer loan company, headquartered in Mississippi, with branches in five states, including Louisiana. Broussard's employment was terminated by the company.^[9][10]

American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were public employees in Oregon, while the defendants were unions or their affiliates that exclusively represent Plaintiffs in the public workplace. The unions negotiated collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") with the plaintiffs' public employers. These CBAs established the terms and conditions of employment for the relevant bargaining units. Although the plaintiffs were not members of the unions, Oregon law had previously required plaintiffs to pay compulsory union fees, often by automatic deduction from plaintiffs' wages, to the unions as a condition of plaintiffs' public employment. In addition, certain provisions in plaintiffs' respective CBAs reinforced this obligation. Plaintiffs did not consent to paying these fees to the Unions.^[11]

Rule XXXI, Paragraph 6 of the United States Senate. He was renominated on January 23, 2023.^[14] On February 9, 2023, his nomination was reported out of committee by a 12–9 vote.^[15] On June 14, 2023, the Senate invoked cloture on his nomination by a 53–46 vote.^[16] Later that day, his nomination was confirmed by a 53–46 vote.^[17] He received his judicial commission on July 7, 2023.^[18] Pitts became the only LGBT Article III judge actively serving on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.^[2][19]