A California appellate court has reversed a trial court decision that a director of a public benefit nonprofit lost her standing to sue the organization and another director for self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty when she was removed from the board following initiation of her suit.  In what is apparently a case of first impression in the state, the Court said that a close reading of the Corporations Code and the needs of public policy justified its ruling that the plaintiff could continue to lead the case.

A bylaw “addendum” of the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association in San Francisco contains an unusual set of voting requirements that has required nearly six years of litigation to interpret.  A Court of Appeal in California has affirmed a trial court decision that a motion to prohibit display of the Republic of China flag at Association meetings failed to pass despite having received a majority of the votes cast at an Association meeting.

A nonprofit healthcare organization can be liable for the sexual harassment of a patient by an employee of the organization, the Supreme Court of Washington has held.  The Court said the organization can be strictly liable under the state anti-discrimination law and rejected the nonprofit’s argument that the standard of liability used for employment cases should apply to a claim under the public accommodations provision of the law.

The Court of Appeals of Minnesota has affirmed a district court ruling dismissing an age discrimination claim by an employee who was terminated and her position eliminated shortly after it became known that she wanted to retire within a year or two.  It found that even though the employer’s comments were more than “stray remarks,” the employee did not show that the corporate reorganization was merely a pretext for discrimination.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the constitutionality of the “parsonage allowance” that allows ministers to avoid income tax on a “rental allowance”” paid as part of compensation to the extent “used to rent or provide a home.”  The Court says it “falls into the play between the joints of the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause: neither commanded by the former, nor proscribed by the latter.”