lawsuit

CBS has notched another small victory in its legal battle with Sony Pictures Television, winning an appellate court ruling that allows the network to continue to distribute “Wheel of Fortune” and “Jeopardy!” as its court case continues.

Sony owns the shows and produces them on its Culver City lot.

Last month, a Los Angeles judge ruled that Sony was no longer obligated to provide episodes to CBS, which has served for decades as the conduit, delivering batches of episodes to television stations around the country.

After that ruling, the Paramount Global-owned network appealed. A three-judge appellate panel paused the order and asked both sides to submit their arguments.

On Wednesday, the judges wrote that they had reviewed filings from both sides. In a one-page order, the panel granted CBS’ request to keep the stay in place, allowing the network to continue its distribution duties during the appeal .

CBS maintains Sony lacks the legal right to unilaterally severe ties.

Sony terminated its distribution deal with CBS in August and later filed a breach-of-contract lawsuit that claimed CBS entered into unauthorized licensing deals for the shows and then paid itself a commission. Sony also maintained that rounds of budget cuts within CBS had hobbled the network’s efforts to support the two shows.

In February, Sony attempted to cut CBS out of the picture, escalating the dispute.

CBS has said Sony’s claims “are rooted in the fact they simply don’t like the deal the parties agreed to decades ago.”

CBS takes in up to 40% of the fees that TV stations pay to carry the shows. The company took over the distribution of the program when it acquired syndication company King World Productions in 1999.

King World struck deals with the original producer, Merv Griffin Enterprises, in the early 1980s to distribute “Jeopardy!” and “Wheel.” Sony later acquired Griffin’s company, but those early agreements remain in effect.

As viewing of traditional TV has declined due to competition for streaming in recent years, the two daily game shows have continued to thrive and are among the most-watched programs in television.

A Sony representative was not immediately available for comment.

The U.S. Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether California, its interscholastic sports federation and the Jurupa Unified School District are violating the civil rights of cisgender girls by allowing transgender students to compete in school sports, federal officials announced Wednesday.

The Justice Department is also throwing its support behind a pending lawsuit alleging similar violations of girls’ rights in the Riverside Unified School District, said U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli, who oversees much of the Los Angeles region, and Assistant Atty. Gen. Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

Transgender track athletes have come under intense scrutiny in recent months in both Jurupa Valley and Riverside, with anti-LGBTQ+ activists attacking them on social media and screaming opposition to their competing at school meets.

Essayli and Dhillon, both Californians appointed under President Trump, have long fought against transgender rights in the state. Their announcements came one day after Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from California for allowing transgender youth to participate in sports.

The legal actions are just the latest attempts by the Trump administration to scale back transgender rights nationwide, including by bringing the fight to California — which has the nation’s largest queer population and some of its most robust LGBTQ+ legal protections — and targeting individual student athletes in the state.

Both Trump in his threats Tuesday and Essayli and Dhillon in their announcement of the investigation Wednesday appeared to reference the recent success of a 16-year-old transgender track athlete at Jurupa Valley High School named AB Hernandez. Trump wrongly suggested that Hernandez had won “everything” at a recent meet — which Hernandez didn’t do.

In a comment to The Times on Wednesday, Hernandez’s mother, Nereyda Hernandez, said it was heartbreaking to see her child being attacked “simply for being who they are,” and despite following all California laws and policies for competing.

“My child is a transgender student-athlete, a hardworking, disciplined, and passionate young person who just wants to play sports, continue to build friendships, and grow into their fullest potential like any other child,” her mother said.

The mother of another transgender high school track athlete in Riverside County who is the subject of the pending lawsuit the Justice Department is now backing declined to comment Wednesday.

The Justice Department said it had sent letters of legal notice to California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, state Supt. of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond, the California Interscholastic Federation and Jurupa Unified.

The U.S. Department of Education had previously announced in February that it was investigating the CIF for allowing transgender athletes to compete. Dhillon said the two federal departments would coordinate their investigations.

Bonta has defended state laws protecting transgender youth, students and athletes, and advised school systems and other institutions in the state, such as hospitals, to adhere to state LGBTQ+ laws — even in the face of various Trump executive orders aimed at curtailing the rights of and healthcare for transgender youth. On Wednesday, his office said it remained “committed to defending and upholding California laws.”

Scott Roark, a spokesman for the California Department of Education, said his agency could not comment. Jacquie Paul, a spokesperson for Jurupa Unified, said the school system had yet to receive the letter Wednesday, and “without further information” could not comment. A spokesperson for the Riverside Unified School District also declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.

The CIF, in a statement, said it “values all of our student-athletes and we will continue to uphold our mission of providing students with the opportunity to belong, connect, and compete while complying with California law and Education Code.”

However, the sports federation also changed its rules for the upcoming 2025 CIF State Track and Field Championships, saying a cisgender girl who is bumped from qualifying for event finals by a transgender athlete would still be allowed to compete and would also be awarded the medal for whichever place they would have claimed were the transgender athlete not competing.

The changes brought renewed criticism from advocates on both sides of the political issue, including Chino Valley Unified school board President Sonja Shaw. Shaw is a Trump supporter running for state schools superintendent who has challenged pro-LGBTQ+ laws statewide and supports the latest investigation. She said that, in making the changes, CIF was “admitting” that girls “are being pushed out of their own sports.”

Dhillon said her office’s “pattern or practice” investigation will consider whether California’s laws and the CIF policies violate Title IX, a 1972 federal civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding.

Title IX has been used in the past to win rights for transgender people, but the Trump administration has taken a strikingly different view of the law — and cited it as a reason transgender rights must be rolled back.

Dhillon said the law “exists to protect women and girls in education,” that it is “perverse to allow males to compete against girls, invade their private spaces, and take their trophies,” and that her division would “aggressively defend women’s hard-fought rights to equal educational opportunities.”

Essayli said in a statement that his office would “work tirelessly to protect girls’ sports and stop anyone — public officials included — from violating women’s civil rights.”

LGBTQ+ advocates, civic institutions in California and many Democratic lawmakers in the state have denounced the framing of transgender inclusion in sports as diminishing the rights of women and girls and accused Trump and other Republicans of attacking transgender people — about 1% of the U.S. population — simply because they make for an easy and vulnerable political target.

Kristi Hirst, co-founder of the public education advocacy group Our Schools USA, said the Justice Department’s actions amounted to “bullying minors and using taxpayer resources to do so,” and that a “better use of public dollars would be for the Justice Department to affirm that all kids possess civil rights, and protect the very students being targeted today.”

The “pattern or practice” investigation is the second such investigation that Dhillon’s office has launched in the L.A. region in as many months. It’s also investigating Los Angeles County over its process for issuing gun permits.

Essayli’s separate decision to back the Riverside lawsuit adds another wrinkle to an already complicated case.

The group Save Girls’ Sports is suing over the inclusion of a transgender athlete in a girls’ track meet in October, a decision they allege unfairly bumped a cisgender girl from competition, and over a decision by high school officials to block students from wearing shirts that read, “IT’S COMMON SENSE. XX [does not equal] XY,” a reference to the different chromosome pairings of biological females and males.

Julianne Fleischer, an attorney with Advocates for Faith & Freedom who is representing Save Girls’ Sports, said Wednesday that Essayli’s decision to weigh in on behalf of the group was welcome.

“This case has always been about common sense, fairness, and the plain meaning of the law,” Fleischer said in a statement. “Girls’ sports were never meant to be a social experiment. They exist so that girls can win, lead and thrive on a level playing field.”

It was unclear how the case would be affected by Essayli’s interest.

The state and school district are asking for the lawsuit to be dismissed. A hearing is scheduled next month.

Essayli, formerly a state Assembly member from Riverside County, made his name in politics in part by attacking what he has called the “woke” policies of California’s liberal majority in Sacramento. Shortly before he was appointed as U.S. attorney last month, other California lawmakers blocked a bill he introduced that would have banned transgender athletes from female sports.

Hernandez, the mother of the targeted Jurupa Valley athlete, said Trump and other officials were bullying children by “weaponizing misinformation and fear instead of embracing truth, compassion and respect,” and asked Trump to reconsider.

“I respectfully request you to open your heart and mind to learn about the LGBTQ+ community,” she said, “not from the voices of fear or division, but from the people living these lives with courage, love and dignity.”

Keyshawn Johnson is suing a sports agent for almost $1 million.

Johnson says he recruited several players, who are now in the NFL, to be represented by Christopher Ellison. The former NFL and USC star’s claim is based on an alleged oral agreement the men made a decade ago to pay Johnson for his efforts. Most of the $1 million represents back payments that Johnson feels he is owed.

A lawsuit filed May 23 in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleges that Johnson and Ellison had agreed that Johnson “was to identify players, make the initial contact with them, and recruit them to be represented by” Ellison.

“In return for this player identification, recruitment and eventual entry into the highest level of the game of football, Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff a specific percentage of the player’s signed contract with the NFL,” the lawsuit states. “Each year, Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff one-third of the (3%) three percent commission Defendant made on each of the players’ salary.”

According to the lawsuit, Johnson successfully recruited four players — San Francisco 49ers defensive back Deommodore Lenoir, Chicago Bears defensive back Jaylon Johnson, Atlanta Falcons defensive back Mike Hughes and Green Bay Packers receiver Romeo Doubs — for Ellison but “has not received his earned percentage of Defendant’s full commission.”

Ellison did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment. TMZ reports that the attorney and UCLA adjunct professor “denies all of the claims Johnson made in the suit.”

The lawsuit details each player’s contract and states that Johnson should have been paid “no less than $962,335 from his work on securing these player agreements.” But, according to the filing, no payment has been received.

“For several months, Defendant claimed he had not received any payments for the NFL’s recruitment of the players he represents,” the lawsuit states. “It is our reasonable belief that this is false.”

Since then, the filing alleges, Ellison “has become unresponsive to Plaintiff’s demands for payment.”

Johnson is seeking the full amount he states he is owed — as well as other damages, costs and fees — for causes of action that include breach of contract, unfair business practices and intentional misrepresentation.

A two-time All-American at USC, Johnson was named the MVP of the 1995 Cotton Bowl Classic and the player of the game in the 1996 Rose Bowl. During his 11-year NFL career, Johnson made three Pro Bowls and won Super Bowl XXXVII with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Since retirement, he has become a sports media personality and, according to his lawsuit, “currently works to coach and develop prospective NFL players.”

Former Los Angeles Times reporter Maya Lau filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday against Los Angeles County, former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, a former undersheriff and a former detective, alleging that a criminal investigation into her activities as a journalist violated her 1st Amendment rights.

The suit comes less than a year after a Times article revealed that Lau had been the target of an L.A. County Sheriff’s Department probe that “was designed to intimidate and punish Lau for her reporting” about a leaked list of deputies with a history of misconduct, Lau’s attorneys alleged in an emailed statement.

Lau’s suit seeks unspecified damages to compensate her for alleged violations of her dignity and privacy, as well as the “continuous injuries” and anxiety she says in the complaint that she has faced in the wake of the revelation she had been investigated.

The suit details “six different counts of violating Ms. Lau’s rights under the U.S. constitution and California state law, including retaliation and civil conspiracy to deny constitutional rights,” according to the statement by Lau’s attorneys.

“It is an absolute outrage that the Sheriff’s Department would criminally investigate a journalist for doing her job,” Lau said in the statement. “I am bringing this lawsuit not just for my own sake, but to send a clear signal in the name of reporters everywhere: we will not be intimidated. The Sheriff’s Department needs to know that these kinds of tactics against journalists are illegal.”

The Sheriff’s Department said in an emailed statement that it had “not been officially served with this lawsuit” by late Tuesday afternoon.

“While these allegations stem from a prior administration, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department under Sheriff Robert G. Luna is firmly committed to upholding the Constitution, including the First Amendment,” the statement said. “We respect the vital role journalists play in holding agencies accountable and believe in the public’s right to a free and independent press.”

Villanueva said via email that he had not yet reviewed the complaint in full and that “under the advice of counsel, I do not comment on pending litigation.”

“What I can say is the investigation in question, like all investigations conducted by the Public Corruption Unit during my tenure as Sheriff of Los Angeles County, were based on facts that were presented to the Office of the Attorney General,” he said. “It is the political establishment, of which the LA Times is a part, that wishes to chill lawful investigations and criminal accountability with frivolous lawsuits such as this one.”

A spokesperson for the county counsel’s office declined further comment. The other defendants in the lawsuit, former Undersheriff Tim Murakami and former Detective Mark Lillienfeld, did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday afternoon.

In December 2017, The Times published a story by Lau about a list of about 300 problem deputies. A lengthy case file reviewed by The Times last year found that department investigators launched an initial probe into who provided Lau with the list. The agency’s investigation began when Jim McDonnell was sheriff in 2017. The Sheriff’s Department ultimately dropped the investigation without referring it for proscution after, as Lau’s complaint says, it “turned up no evidence connecting Ms. Lau to any crime.”

The case file reviewed by The Times last year stated that, after Villanueva became sheriff in 2018, he revived the investigation into Lau, which the complaint alleges was part of an “unlawful conspiracy” conducted as part of a policy of “retaliatory criminal charges against perceived opponents of LASD.”

Lillienfeld led the investigation, and Villanueva “delegated to Undersheriff Murakami his decision-making authority” in the probe, which Murakami ultimately referred to the state attorney general’s office for prosecution, Lau’s complaint says. In May 2024, the office declined to prosecute her, citing insufficient evidence.

But Lau alleges that the damage was already done and that her rights under the 1st Amendment and California’s Constitution had been violated. “If LASD’s actions are left unredressed,” according to the complaint, “journalists in Los Angeles will be chilled from reporting on matters of public concern out of fear that they will be investigated and prosecuted.”

The Sheriff’s Department told The Times last year that its probe of Lau was closed and that the department under Luna does not monitor journalists.

David Snyder, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit free speech and press freedom advocacy organization, told The Times last year that reporting on leaked materials involving a matter of public concern is typically “protected under the 1st Amendment” even if a reporter is aware they were obtained illegally.

“You’re not authorized to break into a file cabinet to get records. You’re not authorized to hack computers. But receiving information that somebody else obtained unlawfully is not a crime,” Snyder said.

The saga of the leaked records began in 2014, when Diana Teran compiled a list of deputies with histories of disciplinary problems. Teran was working for the Office of Independent Review, which conducted oversight of the Sheriff’s Department until it closed down that July.

In 2015, Teran was hired by the Sheriff’s Department to serve in an internal watchdog role. In 2017, according to the investigative file reviewed by The Times last year, she heard that Times reporters including Lau had been asking questions about the list.

After investigating further and learning that the reporters had asked about specific details that matched her 2014 list, she grew worried that it had been leaked.

On Dec. 8, 2017, The Times ran an investigation by Lau and two other reporters that described some of the misconduct detailed in the list, from planting evidence and falsifying records to sexual assault. Some of the deputies on the list, the reporters found, had kept their jobs or been promoted.

Sheriff’s department investigators interviewed Teran and other department officials who all denied leaking the list. The investigation was dropped before Villanueva became sheriff in November 2018.

Several months later, Lillienfeld was assigned to investigate allegations that Teran and other oversight officials had illegally accessed department personnel records, reopening the probe into the leaked list.

Lillienfeld’s inquiry produced an 80-page report that was part of the case file reviewed by The Times last year. It detailed potential times when the list could have been leaked by Teran and stated that she denied doing so.

In fall 2021, Murakami sent the 300-page case file – which identified Lau, Teran, L.A. County Inspector General Max Huntsman, an assistant to Teran and an attorney in Huntsman’s office as suspects – to California Atty. General Rob Bonta. There was no probable cause to prosecute Lau, according to the complaint.

“Undersheriff Murakami alleged that Ms. Lau had engaged in conspiracy, theft of government property, unlawful access of a computer, burglary, and receiving stolen property,” the complaint says. “Ms. Lau did not commit any of these crimes.”

Bonta declined to prosecute the case.

“The retaliatory investigation against Ms. Lau is one example of how Alex Villanueva used the LASD to target and harass his political opponents,” said Justin Hill, an attorney at Loevy & Loevy representing Lau. “Our communities suffer when governmental leaders try to silence journalists and other individuals who hold those leaders accountable. This lawsuit seeks to re-affirm the protected role that journalism plays in our society.”

Two tribal nations filed a lawsuit saying that the federal government used the trust fund money of tribes to pay for boarding schools where generations of Native children were systematically abused.

In the lawsuit filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the Wichita Tribe and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California said that by the U.S. government’s own admission, the schools were funded using money raised by forcing tribal nations into treaties to cede their lands. That money was to be held in trust for the collective benefit of tribes.

“The United States Government, the trustee over Native children’s education and these funds, has never accounted for the funds that it took, or detailed how, or even whether, those funds were ultimately expended. It has failed to identify any funds that remain,” according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed against Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Education. A spokesperson for the Interior declined to comment on pending litigation.

In 2022, the Department of the Interior, under the direction of Secretary Deb Haaland, the first Native American to run the agency, released a scathing report on the legacy of the boarding school era, in which Native children were stolen from their homes, forced to assimilate, and in many cases physically, sexually and mentally abused. Countless children died at the schools, many of whom were buried in unmarked graves at the institutions.

That report detailed the U.S. government’s intentions of using the boarding schools as a way to both strip Native children of their culture and dispossess their tribal nations of land.

The tribes are asking the court to make the U.S. account for the estimated $23.3 billion it appropriated for the boarding school program, detail how that money was invested, and list the remaining funds that were taken by the U.S. and allocated for the education of Native children.

Last year, President Biden issued a formal apology for the government’s boarding school policy, calling it “a sin on our soul” and “one of the most horrific chapters” in American history. But in April, the administration of President Trump cut $1.6 million from projects meant to capture and digitize stories of boarding school survivors.

Brewer writes for the Associated Press.

As mass protests over the police murder of George Floyd raged across Los Angeles in late May 2020, the LAPD had an unexpected problem.

After a week of demonstrations, officers had fired so many “less-lethal” crowd control projectiles made of rubber that the department’s stockpile was running low.

Scrambling to buy more, officials arranged for two reserve officers to fly a private plane to Casper, Wyo., to pick up 2,000 additional rounds from an arms wholesaler called Safariland, according to LAPD emails reviewed by The Times.

The days and weeks that followed brought more unrest in the streets, with police criticized for indiscriminately firing rubber rounds into crowds, injuring scores of people with shots to the face or torso.

Multiple reports and activists assailed the department’s response to the protests as a botched operation that resulted from poor planning, inadequate training and failure to learn from past mistakes.

According to The Times’ analysis of LAPD data released by the L.A. city attorney’s office, police actions related to the George Floyd protests have cost $11.9 million in settlements and jury awards. Scores of other pending lawsuits represent potentially tens of millions more in liability exposure.

Yet five years removed from Floyd’s killing, police backers say public opinion has largely swung back in favor of aggressive law enforcement, pointing as proof to last year’s passage of tough-on-crime legislation and ousting of progressive prosecutors.

Last month, President Trump issued an executive order promising to “unleash high-impact local police forces” in his administration’s campaign against “criminal aliens.”

The U.S. Department of Justice moved last week to cancel settlements to overhaul police departments in Louisville, Ky., and Minneapolis. The federal oversight was part of the national reckoning with racism and police brutality that followed the law enforcement killings of Breonna Taylor and Floyd, who was pinned to the pavement by a police officer for nearly 10 minutes before dying.

The push to overhaul the LAPD that began in 2020 did not result in sweeping changes, but the Police Department has in some ways come to resemble the slimmed-down version sought by some activists.

While its multibillion-dollar budget has only grown, the number of low-level arrests and traffic stops have plummeted, and staffing shortages have forced the department to focus more on responding to and solving violent crimes.

Today, the department is nearly 1,300 officers smaller than it was when Floyd died, with fewer cops on the force than at any point since 1995, mirroring nationwide declines in police staffing.

On Thursday, the L.A. City Council signed off on a $14-billion spending plan for 2025-26 that cuts funding for police recruitment in order to avoid laying off hundreds of city workers. The council provided enough money for the LAPD to hire 240 new officers over the coming year, down from the 480 proposed by Mayor Karen Bass last month.

Asked in a news radio appearance last week whether Floyd’s death had changed policing, LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell said it had, largely with the slump in hiring.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell, center, and Capt. James Hwang perform the uniform inspection during graduation for recruit class 11-24 on May 2.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

The department lost scores of cops who didn’t “feel support,” he said, and recruitment continues to prove challenging.

“So that has had a negative impact on the profession overall,” he told public radio station KCRW. “We have to restore morale within the organization; we have to restore pride within the profession.”

Following years of calls for embracing alternatives to traditional policing, LAPD officials and city leaders are continuing to explore ways to hand off calls involving substance abuse, homelessness and mental illness. Officers are also no longer responding to minor traffic accidents.

Efforts to limit police traffic involvement have gained some traction, and a controversial policy enacted by former Chief Michel Moore still restricts so-called pretextual stops of motorists or pedestrians that critics say led to the disproportionate harassment of Black and brown Angelenos. The department has also taken steps to try to limit dangerous pursuits by asking supervisors to monitor them in real-time, and if the chase proves too dangerous, to call them off.

Police data show violent crime continues to drop from pandemic highs, with the exception of aggravated assaults and robberies in certain parts of the city. Property crimes, including most burglaries, have also started to trend downward.

Some efforts at reform have stalled, including a proposal to overhaul the department’s disciplinary system for officers. Another plan that would have replaced LAPD officers with unarmed transportation workers on traffic stops sputtered amid debates around jurisdiction and funding.

Art Acevedo, who began his career with the California Highway Patrol before serving as police chief in several major cities including Houston and Miami, blamed movements to “defund” and “abolish” police for polarizing the debate on how to move forward.

Acevedo, who applied for the LAPD chief’s job that eventually went to McDonnell, said police unions and allies weaponized such rhetoric because it “effectively equated advocating for police reform as one and the same as advocating for defunding the police.”

“That movement created a backlash that has translated into a diminished appetite” for reform, he said.

Acevedo also worried about officers feeling emboldened to bend or break the rules in the current climate: “You don’t want to re-create the perception, real or not, that it’s open season for bad policing, because you’re going to have that small percentage that’re going to act on that belief that they’re not going to be held accountable.”

Melina Abdullah, co-founder of Black Lives Matter-Los Angeles, shared similar concerns.

“I think they absolutely feel unleashed,” she said of police. “Not that they were ever on a leash.”

Part of the problem, Abdullah said, is public fatigue over the seemingly constant barrage of troubling incidents.

“People don’t have the bandwidth to respond with the kind of outrage that they would when you saw the beatings at Pan Pacific Park,” said Abdullah, referring to the LAPD’s response to protests in 2020.

John Burton, an attorney who filed lawsuits on behalf of several people who were wounded by less-lethal rounds during L.A. protests in 2020, said that most changes to the LAPD have been around the edges, but the department hasn’t addressed its culture of aggression.

The lack of progress, he said, is obvious in the LAPD internal affairs investigations he’s reviewed that rarely found anything wrong with officers’ use of force — even in the face of overwhelming video evidence. More than a few officers mentioned in his lawsuits have since been promoted, he said, even after he accused them of lying in police reports.

LAPD supervisors looked the other way, he said, because they are “very protective” of their officers.

Burton also noted that rubber projectiles are still being used, despite little evidence the weapons helped rein in chaos on the streets. Police also once faced criticism last year for the handling of pro-Palestinian protests on the USC and UCLA campuses.

“The thought that you’re going to stop somebody from throwing a rock at the cops by shooting one of these first is a fantasy,” he said. “They can cause very serious injuries.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

In the last several years, YouTube has become an increasingly formidable competitor to streaming services and entertainment studios, providing videos from amateur and professional creators, as well as livestreaming major events and NFL games.

Now its growing threat to studios is playing out in the courts.

The Google-owned platform recently poached Justin Connolly, president of platform distribution from Walt Disney Co.

On Wednesday, Disney sued YouTube and Connolly for breach of contract, alleging that Connolly violated an employment agreement that did not expire until March 2027 at the earliest.

Connolly oversaw Disney’s distribution strategy and third-party media sales for its streaming services like Disney+ and its television networks. He also was responsible for film and TV programming distribution through broadcasting and digital platforms, subscription video services and pay networks.

As part of his role, Connolly led Disney’s negotiations for a licensing deal renewal with YouTube, Disney said in its lawsuit.

“It would be extremely prejudicial to Disney for Connolly to breach the contract which he negotiated just a few months ago and switch teams when Disney is working on a new licensing deal with the company that is trying to poach him,” Disney said in its lawsuit.

Disney is seeking a preliminary injunction against Connolly and YouTube to enforce its employment contract.

YouTube did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

At YouTube, Connolly will be become the company’s head of media and sports, where he will be in charge of YouTube’s relationships with media companies and its live sports portfolio, according to Bloomberg.

YouTube accounted for 12% of U.S. TV viewing in in March, more than other streaming services like Netflix, according to Nielsen. YouTube’s revenue last year was estimated to be $54.2 billion, making it the second-largest media company behind Walt Disney Co., according to research firm MoffettNathanson.

Unlike many other major streaming platforms, YouTube has a mix of content made by users as well as professional studios, giving it a diverse and large video library. More than 20 billion videos have been uploaded to its platform, the company recently said. There are over 20 million videos uploaded daily on average.

Streaming services such as Netflix have brought some YouTube content to their platforms, including episodes of preschool program “Ms. Rachel.”On a recent earnings call, Netflix co-Chief Executive Greg Peters named YouTube as one of its “strong competitors.”

Connolly entered into an employment agreement with Disney on Nov. 6, Disney said in its lawsuit. That contract ran from Jan. 1, 2025 to Dec. 31, 2027, with Connolly having the option of terminating the agreement earlier on March 1, 2027, the lawsuit said.

As part of the agreement, Connolly agreed not to engage in business or become associated with any entity that is in business with Disney or its affiliates, the lawsuit said. Disney said YouTube was aware of Connolly’s employment deal with Disney but still made an offer to him.

Entertainment companies have brought lawsuits in the past to stop executive talent poaching by rivals.

In 2020, Activision Blizzard sued Netflix for poaching its chief financial officer, Spencer Neumann. That case was later closed, after Activision asked to dismiss the lawsuit in 2022.

Netflix years ago also faced litigation from Fox and Viacom alleging executives broke their contract agreements to work for the Los Gatos-based streaming service. In 2019, a judge issued an injunction barring Netflix from poaching rival Fox executives under contract or inducing them to breach their fixed-term agreements.

Editorial library director Cary Schneider contributed to this report.

HONOLULU — Environmentalists are challenging in court President Trump’s executive order that they say strips core protections from the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument and opens the area to harmful commercial fishing.

On the same day of last month’s proclamation allowing commercial fishing in the monument, Trump issued an order to boost the U.S. commercial fishing industry by peeling back regulations and opening up harvesting in previously protected areas.

The monument was created by President George W. Bush in 2009 and expanded by President Obama to nearly 500,000 square miles in the central Pacific Ocean.

A week after the April 17 proclamation, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service sent a letter to fishing permit holders giving them a green light to fish commercially within the monument’s boundaries, even though a long-standing fishing ban remains on the books, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Honolulu.

The first longline fisher started fishing in the monument just three days after that letter, according to Earthjustice, which has been tracking vessel activity within the monument using Global Fishing Watch.

The Department of Justice declined to comment Friday.

The lawsuit noted that commercial longline fishing, an industrial method involving baited hooks from lines 60 miles or longer, will snag turtles, marine mammals or seabirds that are attracted to the bait or swim through the curtain of hooks.

“We will not stand by as the Trump administration unleashes highly destructive commercial fishing on some of the planet’s most pristine, biodiverse marine environments,” David Henkin, an Earthjustice attorney, said in a statement. “Piling lawlessness on top of lawlessness, the National Marine Fisheries Service chose to carry out President Trump’s illegal proclamation by issuing its own illegal directive, with no public input.”

Designating the area in the Pacific to the south and west of the Hawaiian Islands as a monument provided “needed protection to a wide variety of scientific and historical treasures in one of the most spectacular and unique ocean ecosystems on earth,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit added that allowing commercial fishing in the monument expansion harms the “cultural, spiritual, religious, subsistence, educational, recreational, and aesthetic interests” of a group of Native Hawaiian plaintiffs who are connected genealogically to the Indigenous people of the Pacific.

Johnston Atoll is the closest island in the monument to Hawaii, about 717 nautical miles west-southwest of the state.

Kelleher writes for the Associated Press.

Edison International officers and directors misled the company’s investors about the effectiveness of its efforts to reduce the risk of wildfire in the months and years before the devastating Eaton fire, a shareholder lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, points to repeated statements that the utility made in federal regulatory reports that said it had reduced the risk of a catastrophic wildfire by more than 85% since 2018 by increasing equipment inspections, tree trimming and other work aimed at stopping fires.

The complaint also raises doubts about news releases and other statements that Edison made soon after the start of Eaton fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in Altadena.

“We take all legal matters seriously,” said Jeff Monford, a spokesman for Edison. “We will review this lawsuit and respond through the appropriate legal channels.”

The lawsuit claims that Edison’s early statements on the Eaton fire — in which it detailed why it believed its equipment was not involved in the fire’s start — were wrong.

“Edison obfuscated the truth by making false and misleading statements concerning its role in the fire,” the lawsuit claims.

More recently, Pedro Pizarro, the chief executive of Edison International, said the leading theory for the fire’s start was the reenergization of an unused, decades-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon.

The investigation by state and local fire investigators into the official cause of the deadly fire is continuing.

The lawsuit was filed as a derivative action in which shareholders sue a company’s officers and directors on behalf of the company, claiming they had breached their fiduciary duties. It seeks financial damages from Pizarro, Chief Financial Officer Maria Rigatti and members of the company’s board of directors. Money recovered would go to the company.

It also directs Edison “to take all necessary actions” to reform its corporate governance procedures, comply with all laws and protect the company and its investors “from a recurrence of the damaging events.”

The lawsuit was brought by Charlotte Bark, a shareholder of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison.

“Prior to the outbreak of the Eaton Fire, the Company had a long history of not prioritizing the safety of those who lived in the areas it serviced, and paying fines as a result,” the lawsuit states. Since 2000, it says, Edison has paid financial penalties of $1.3 billion for violating utility safety regulations.

The complaint points to an October regulatory report that was the focus of a Times report. In the article, state regulators criticized some of Edison’s wildfire mitigation efforts, including for falling behind in inspecting transmission lines in areas at high risk of fires.

The lawsuit lists the major destructive wildfires that investigators said were sparked by Edison’s equipment in recent years, including the Bobcat and Silverado fires in 2020, as well as the Coastal and Fairview fires in 2022.

“The recurring wildfire incidents connected to the Company display that the Board has repeatedly failed to mitigate a risk that materially threatens Edison,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit accuses Pizarro, Rigatti and the company’s board of directors of “gross mismanagement” and claims that the defendants “unjustly enriched” themselves.

“Because the Individual Defendants failed to carry out their respective duties, the compensation they received was excessive and undeserved,” the suit states.

It asks the court for an order that would require the officers and directors to pay restitution, including returning the compensation they received that was tied to how well the company performed.

A photographer and photo agency filed a lawsuit against Jennifer Lopez alleging copyright infringement after the actor and singer allegedly posted copyrighted photos of herself from a pre-Golden Globes party to social media.

In the complaint, filed Saturday in federal court, photographer Edwin Blanco accuses Lopez of posting photos of her arriving and departing from the January event on Instagram and X without permission. Backgrid USA, a news and photo agency, filed a twin suit related to the same photographs, which the company and Blanco co-own, according to court documents.

The photos, which as of Tuesday remained on her Instagram and X with no visible watermark, show her in white fur coat and slip dress, clutching a Chanel purse. The post on Instagram is captioned “Weekend Glamour.”

A representative for Lopez did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on Tuesday.

The lawsuit alleges that the “Let’s Get Loud” singer posted the photos to market designers she wore at the event. Blanco and Backgrid did not respond to a request for comment on Tuesday. But in a statement to Billboard, attorney Peter Perkowski, who represents Blanco and Backgrid, claims that Lopez’s use was “commercial in nature.”

“For example, Ms. Lopez used the images to spotlight the designer of her clothing and jewelry,” he told Billboard. “Leveraging the publicity from the event to promote her fashion affiliations and brand partnerships.”

He also told the outlet that both parties had “fruitful discussions” in the weeks after the photos were posted, with Lopez’s team orally agreeing to a monetary settlement. But when the papers arrived, Perkowski says she didn’t sign them and has not yet paid the agreed sum.

Backgrid and Blanco are seeking statutory damages up to $150,000 for each photo used as well as a jury trial, according to the lawsuit.

Lopez faced legal action in 2019 and 2020 for allegedly sharing photos of her taken by others. In 2020, her production company Nuyorican Productions was also sued for $40 million by a woman who inspired Lopez’s character in the film “Hustlers.”

Wendy McMahon is stepping down as from her role as president of CBS News and Stations, indicating her disagreement with the parent company’s handling of President Trump’s lawsuit against “60 Minutes.”

“It’s become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward,” McMahon said in a note sent to CBS News staff Monday. “It’s time for me to move on and for this organization to move forward with new leadership.”

McMahon has been firm in her position that CBS News parent Paramount Global should not settle the $20-billion suit from Trump, which claims an October interview with his 2024 opponent Vice President Kamala Harris was deceptively edited to help her presidential campaign.

The lawsuit is an obstacle to Paramount Global’s proposed $8-billion sale to Skydance Media. The case has gone to a mediator.

McMahon’s departure is a sign that a settlement may be close.

With McMahon’s exit, CBS News President Tom Cibrowski and CBS Stations President Jennifer Mitchell will each report directly to CBS Chief Executive George Cheeks.

McMahon joined CBS in 2021. She oversaw the company’s syndication division and TV stations as well as CBS News.

Cheeks brought McMahon to the company from Walt Disney Co., where she led the ABC station group. At the time, Cheeks was trying to clean up its stations division, which was plagued by management issues and the firing of its former head, Peter Dunn.

Since then, McMahon rose to be one of Cheeks’ most trusted lieutenants, taking over CBS News. But she irked Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Shari Redstone, over CBS News coverage of the Israel-Hamas war.

Times staff writer Meg James contributed to this report.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has opened a criminal investigation into Motown singer Smokey Robinson after four of his former staffers accused him of sexual assault and wage theft.

Robinson, 85, was sued earlier this month by three former housekeepers and a former personal assistant who allege that the singer, whose legal name is William Robinson, forced them to have sex with him and also failed to pay minimum wage or overtime pay.

The suit, which was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, also accuses the singer’s wife, Frances Robinson, of regularly screaming at the employees, using ethnically pejorative words and failing to do anything to prevent her husband’s sexual abuse despite allegedly being aware of his actions.

The couple’s attorney, Christopher Frost, has denied the allegations. Details of the Sheriff’s Department’s probe were not immediately provided Thursday.

“The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Special Victims Bureau is actively investigating criminal allegations involving William Robinson, a.k.a. ‘Smokey Robinson,’” said department spokesperson Nicole Nishida. “The investigation is in the early stages, and we have no further comment.”

Frost said the Sheriff’s Department is required to investigate the allegations because the women filed a police report after filing the lawsuit.

In a statement, Frost called the police report “a desperate attempt to prejudice public opinion and make even more of a media circus than the Plaintiffs were previously able to create” and said his clients welcome the investigation.

“The record will ultimately demonstrate that this is nothing more than a manufactured lawsuit intended to tarnish the good names of Smokey and Frances Robinson, for no other reason than unadulterated avarice,” the statement read.

The lawsuit states that the women previously had reservations about reporting Robinson’s alleged abuse to authorities for several reasons including fear about immigration status, losing their livelihoods, public humiliation and intimidation by Robinson and his influential friends.

Attorneys representing the four woman — who filed the lawsuit as Jane Does — said they were pleased to learn that the Sheriff’s Department had opened an investigation into their clients’ claims of sexual assault.

“Our clients intend to fully cooperate with LASD’s ongoing investigation in the pursuit of seeking justice for themselves and others that may have been similarly assaulted by him [Robinson],” attorneys John Harris and Herbert Hayden said in a statement.

The civil lawsuit accuses the Robinsons of negligence, sexual battery and sexual assault, false imprisonment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, gender violence, and a hostile work environment, in addition to labor violations related to wages, breaks, meal periods, and holiday and overtime pay, according to the complaint.

The women allege that the “Tracks of My Tears” singer required them to have various types of sex with him — vaginal, oral and digital — over the years at his houses in Chatsworth, Bell Canyon and Las Vegas.

Jane Doe 1 worked for the Robinsons from January 2023 until February 2024. Jane Doe 2 worked from May 2014 to February 2020. Jane Doe 3 worked from February 2012 to April 2024, and Jane Doe 4 worked from October 2006 to April 2024.

Times staff writers Christie D’Zurilla and Richard Winton contributed to this report.

BATON ROUGE, La. — A legal challenge against a first-of-its-kind measure that recategorized two widely used abortion-inducing drugs as “controlled dangerous substances” in Louisiana can move forward, a judge ruled Thursday.

Baton Rouge-based Judge Jewel Welch denied the Louisiana attorney general’s request to dismiss a lawsuit filed last year by opponents of the law, who argue that the reclassification of the pills is unconstitutional and could cause needless and potentially life-threatening delays in treatment during medical emergencies.

Attorneys for defendants in the suit, including Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill, argued that the lawsuit was premature. But attorneys for the plaintiffs, who include a doctor and pharmacist, said that since the law took effect in October, the measure has impacted how the plaintiffs handle and obtain the drugs on a “regular basis.”

A hearing date for the challenge has not yet been set.

Louisiana became the first state to heighten the classification of misoprostol and mifepristone, which have critical reproductive healthcare uses in addition to being used as a two-drug regimen to end pregnancies.

Passage of the measure by the GOP-dominated Legislature marked a new approach in conservative efforts to restrict access to abortion pills. In 2023, nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the country were medication abortions.

Now labeled as “Schedule IV drugs,” the pills are in the same category as the opioid tramadol and other substances that can be addictive. Under the new classification, there are more stringent storage requirements and extra steps to obtain the drugs. Testifying against the legislation, doctors stressed the drugs would be stored in locked containers or elsewhere that may result in slower access during emergency situations where every second is vital.

In the legal challenge, which was filed in October, plaintiffs say the law may slow access to “lifesaving treatment for people experiencing obstetrical emergencies” and make it “significantly harder” for people to “obtain proven, effective remedies necessary for their treatment and care.” Plaintiffs are asking the judge for a permanent injunction, ultimately to halt the law.

The legislation spawned from antiabortion groups and a Republican state senator’s effort to prevent coerced abortion and make it more difficult for bad actors to obtain the drugs. The lawmaker pointed to the case of his sister in Texas who in 2022 was slipped seven misoprostol pills by her husband without her knowledge; she and the baby survived. Over the past 15 years, news outlets have reported on similar cases — none in Louisiana — but the issue does not appear widespread.

“The Louisiana Legislature spoke loud and clear last year that they stand for life and are against this controlled substance being prescribed without a prescription from a doctor,” Murrill said ahead of the hearing.

Prior to the reclassification, a prescription was still needed to obtain mifepristone and misoprostol in Louisiana. Before the change, medical personnel told the Associated Press that in hospitals the drugs — which are also used to treat miscarriages, induce labor and stop bleeding — were often stored in an OB-GYN unit in a “hemorrhage box” in the room, on the delivery table or in a nurse’s pocket, to ensure almost-immediate access in common emergency situations.

With the heightened classification also comes increased charges. If someone knowingly possesses mifepristone or misoprostol without a valid prescription for any purpose, they could be fined up to $5,000 and sent to jail for one to five years. The law carves out protections for pregnant women who obtain the drug without a prescription to take on their own.

Other plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the Birthmark Doula Collective, an organization of people trained to provide pregnancy care before, during and after birth; Nancy Davis, a woman who was denied an abortion in Louisiana and traveled out of state for one after learning her fetus would not survive; and a woman who said she was turned away from two emergency rooms instead of being treated for a miscarriage.

Louisiana currently has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country, which includes abortions via medication.

Cline writes for the Associated Press.

In police circles, it’s known as the “LAPD lottery.”

Speaking at a city budget presentation this month, Police Chief Jim McDonnell said some officers have sought to “weaponize” the department’s disciplinary system to settle grievances, leaving city taxpayers on the hook for the legal bills.

Los Angeles has paid out at least $68.5 million over the last five years to resolve lawsuits filed by officers who claimed to be the victim of sexual harassment, racial discrimination or retaliation against whistleblowers, according to a Times analysis of payout data released by the city attorney’s office.

Skeptics inside the Los Angeles Police Department write off the claims as opportunistic officers trying to hit the jackpot, twisting paper trails created by the department’s much-maligned internal discipline system into the basis for lawsuits.

But the officers who sue and their labor attorneys argue the department’s continued failure to thoroughly investigate complaints or fix systemic issues leaves no other recourse.

Several recent civil trials have resulted in settlements or jury awards in the seven figures or more, including $11.5 million to a former K-9 officer who alleged colleagues spread false rumors about him and mocked his Samoan heritage. Dozens of other suits remain pending, likely leaving the city staring down more substantial payouts in the coming years.

The question of how to deal with the suits has emerged as one of the most pressing issues since McDonnell’s tenure as chief began in November. Mayor Karen Bass has said the city’s $1-billion budget deficit is at least partly driven by expensive legal payouts, as well as emergency response costs related to the Palisades fire and “downward national economic trends.”

Last year, the LAPD’s private fundraising arm gave $240,000 to hire an outside consultant to help the department analyze “the results of litigation to see if there are lessons to be learned from that.”

The consultant, Arif Alikhan, the department’s former director of constitutional policing, said he and his team are seeking to identify trends of risky behavior, improve tracking of problem employees and hold supervisors accountable for not addressing conduct that exposes the department to liability.

Part of the challenge, he said, is that cases take years to resolve, leading to lag time in awareness. “Then it kind of bubbles up and becomes a bigger issue and then you have multiple people suing.”

The city attorney’s office, which is responsible for defending the department against lawsuits, said in response to questions from The Times that cases are settled when “there could be a jury finding of liability, and when we can reach an agreement for a reasonable amount of money.”

“We will always do what is in the best interests of the city and continue to aggressively defend lawsuits—especially when plaintiffs’ attorneys try to make a fortune off of the City with unreasonable non-economic damages claims,” the city attorney’s office said in a statement. “Our office will aggressively defend against lawsuits that lack merit, as well as lawsuits in which the plaintiff’s attorney is making unreasonable demands for taxpayer dollars to resolve a case.”

The LAPD has long wrestled with costly litigation, and many claims by aggrieved officers are dismissed. But according to the data released to The Times, payouts for officer-driven lawsuits have increased recently: At least 13 verdicts or settlements worth $1 million or more have come since 2019, including nine in the last three years.

Beyond the cost to taxpayers, the public airing of workplace disputes can prove embarrassing to a department that has long fancied itself a spit-and-polish institution.

Take the Transit Services Division, where years of troubles and finger-pointing have led to a snarl of more than half a dozen lawsuits.

A former detective, Heather Rolland, received a $949,000 payout after she accused male colleagues of disparaging her for being injured on the job and of fostering a hostile work environment for women who worked in the division, which holds a lucrative contract with the county Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide security on bus and train lines.

Among the male officials mentioned in her lawsuit is Randy Rangel, a former Transit Services sergeant, who filed his own claim against the city alleging he was retaliated against after reporting another officer for abusing his overtime pay. Last month, an L.A. County jury awarded him $4.5 million, which may still be challenged on appeal.

One of the witnesses who testified on Rangel’s behalf was his former captain, Brian Pratt, who also has a pending suit against the city. Pratt contends he was targeted with an anonymous personnel complaint after accusing a deputy chief of inappropriately using division staff to do nontransit work — a claim the city has denied in court filings.

The cycle of litigation continued with an internal affairs detective assigned to investigate Pratt. The detective alleged in a whistleblower claim that his bosses demanded unfavorable findings despite no evidence of wrongdoing. The lawsuit by Det. Hamilton Alvarenga also remains pending, with the city disputing his allegations.

Yet another Transit Services supervisor, Ashraf “Andy” Hanna, is pursuing legal action over what he alleged is a culture of anti-Arab discrimination. Hanna is also named as a defendant in several lawsuits, with co-workers accusing him of workplace hostility, which he disputes. One of his accusers, an officer named Natalie Bustamante, recently settled her sexual harassment lawsuit with the city for an undisclosed sum.

LAPD officers are supposed to report wrongdoing — or attempts to cover it up — to their supervisors, internal affairs or the Office of the Inspector General, which can investigate and potentially refer cases of misconduct to the chief for discipline. Those complaints are sealed from the public under state law, but the plaintiffs in several recent civil lawsuits alleged that the internal investigations tended to drag on unnecessarily and rarely led to punishment for the accused.

Attorney Matthew McNicholas, who has represented scores of officers in civil lawsuits, said he thinks that the growing payouts are a reflection of the city attorney’s hardball approach to civil litigation. This tough stance is costing taxpayers money by insisting on fighting cases even when it was clear they would lose in court, he said.

He pointed to the cases of Lou and Stacey Vince, a police couple who filed separate lawsuits against the department for retaliation and discrimination they faced while working in the San Fernando Valley. Lou Vince had alleged mistreatment after he returned from a work injury. In her claim, Stacey Vince said that after speaking up in her husband’s defense, she was denied a promotion and moved into a cramped office underneath the gym floor at the Police Academy with no furniture or Wi-Fi.

The couple, represented by McNicholas, received nearly $11 million in combined payouts.

“We tried to settle them both for low seven figures,” he said.

Joanna Schwartz, a UCLA law professor, said risk managers in L.A. and other cities should be looking for “policy changes or adjustments to staffing” after getting sued repeatedly.

“Best practices include internally investigating all allegations brought in lawsuits and then reviewing all the information that comes out during the course of discovery and trial,” Schwartz said.

The issue is not unique to the LAPD: Los Angeles County spent $150 million last year alone to defend the Sheriff’s Department from a slew of legal claims. And employment-related awards are only a fraction of the $358.8 million paid out in all LAPD lawsuits since 2019, including for traffic accidents, crackdowns on protesters and a botched fireworks detonation that leveled several city blocks and left dozens of residents displaced.

But the department’s handling of workplace complaints has drawn criticism on multiple fronts, including from the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

The union for rank-and-file officers, which sometimes helps members bring lawsuits, has cited the large verdicts as a sign senior LAPD officials are turning a blind eye to injustices in the workplace.

Last week, Jamie McBride, an outspoken union board member, filed a lawsuit in which he accused an assistant police chief of unfairly reprimanding him for speaking out about the LAPD’s grooming policy, the rules for how officers can keep their hair and mustaches.

McBride said in his suit that his remarks came during a union meeting in August 2023, when someone in the audience asked whether the department intended to change its rules to allow beards without a medical exemption, which is commonly granted to Black officers with skin conditions that make shaving painful.

McBride said he replied, “Well, I hope not ‘cause I think it looks like s—.”

He learned, according to his lawsuit, that that the department opened an investigation for what it deemed “racially discriminatory comments.”

McBride’s suit argues that his statement — “however controversial” — was made in the “context of protected union activity.”

The city has not yet filed a response in court to McBride’s claim. He didn’t respond to a message seeking comment.

McBride, who previously received $1.5 million after suing over alleged retaliation by his LAPD supervisors, is part of an internal work group looking at potential changes to the discipline system, along with Deputy Chief Michael Rimkunas, who runs the department’s professional standards bureau.

Rimkunas defended the department’s “thorough and comprehensive process” for addressing officer complaints, but said he is also pushing for “additional safeguards to be certain the complaint system is properly used.”

He said internal investigators are being more judicious about screening complaints before starting a formal inquiry. Cases involving apparent personality conflicts between employees are referred back to their supervisors for mediation “within weeks, even when the behavior may not have reached the level of misconduct,” he said.

It used to take up to a year, Rimkunas said, to “reach a point for potential intervention.”