New law: School districts might be banned from allowing intimidating or humiliating behavior by teachers toward other teachers--and the gratuitous sabotage of work performance

Will teacher culture change due to new laws requiring examination of bullying in the workplace?  I doubt it.  Teacher culture is really just human nature adapted to a particular setting, and it is perhaps most intensely practiced by those teachers who have become administrators. Here's an article about new laws in California, including the requirement to train employees about bullying.  It may be a first step toward making bullying illegal in the workplace.

CALIFORNIA: 5 new laws that will affect employers, workers

BY RICHARD K. De ATLEY 
Press Enterprise 

Updated: Jan. 4, 2015

It’s 2015 and with the new year comes new state laws that affect California employers and employees.

Among them is legislation that affects sick leave use and accrual, employer responsibilities regarding independent contractors, and the inclusion of “abusive conduct” training for supervisors. Unpaid interns and foreign workers also have new protections...

'ABUSIVE CONDUCT' TRAINING

Law: AB 2053. Expands existing sexual-harassment training requirements to include prevention of abusive conduct.

What it says: Employers already required to provide sexual harrassment training to supervisors must now also provide training on “abusive conduct.”
That conduct is defined as something that “a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests.” Acts can include “repeated infliction of verbal abuse...verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or the gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.”

The law also states that no single act can be counted as abusive conduct “unless especially severe and egregious.”

What it means: The National Review article notes that AB 2053 does not say what should be included in the training component for abusive conduct, and suggests employers consult with approved trainers to see how it can be incorporated into sexual harrassment training programs.
Attorneys Messigian and Ratinoff comment that the law “does not create a cause of action for abusive conduct in the workplace, but it does appear to be the first step toward protecting workers against bullying in the workplace that is not linked to any form of illegal discrimination.”...

Sheriff Joe Arpaio pals disbarred for perjury and intimidation

Sheriff Joe’s world crumbles
The controversial Arizona cop is prepping for a possible trial. But already, his closest allies have fallen
By John Dougherty
Apr 18, 2012

With fresh calls for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio to face a federal criminal trial, many are predicting the end of his controversial career. What few people realize outside metropolitan Phoenix is how much Arpaio’s world has already fallen apart around him.

One-by-one, Arpaio’s closest allies have been forced from power or severed support, leaving the combative 79-year-old sheriff seeking his sixth term increasingly isolated and vulnerable as emboldened foes sharpen their attacks.

The latest Arpaio political supporter to fall is former Maricopa County attorney Andrew Thomas, who was disbarred April 10 for engaging in unethical conduct to intimidate and smear his and Arpaio’s political adversaries.

A stinging 247-page opinion written by a three-member Arizona state Supreme Court disciplinary panel supporting the disbarment ruling also concluded there was “beyond reasonable doubt” that Thomas had violated federal civil rights laws.

While Thomas, a Republican, has not been criminally charged, the opinion made it crystal clear that his unethical and allegedly illegal conduct was the result of his “unholy collaboration” with Arpaio, also a Republican, to use their law enforcement powers to retaliate against critics.

Thomas and an assistant prosecutor, Lisa Aubuchon, were disbarred for violating perjury and intimidation laws when they filed criminal charges against Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and two county supervisors, Mary Rose Wilcox and Don Stapley.

All three of the criminal cases, filed in 2008 and 2009, were later dismissed for lack of evidence and conflict of interest issues.

The Supreme Court panel’s opinion stated that evidence indicated Arpaio had conspired with Thomas and Aubuchon to file the charges against the judge and two supervisors.

The Thomas disbarment opinion comes at the same time the Department of Justice has been conducting a three-year grand jury criminal investigation into allegations that Arpaio abused his power to go after opponents. And the federal grand jury criminal investigation is running parallel to a DOJ civil rights violations probe into claims that Arpaio’s deputies routinely targeted Latinos for arrest in an effort to round up and deport illegal immigrants.

Arpaio’s critics are now seizing on the Thomas disbarment opinion to put pressure on DOJ to bring criminal charges against Arpaio, or walk away...