The definitions in our glossary are primarily sourced from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. We have made slight modifications where needed for brevity and to better tailor the definitions to the specific needs of users of this website. For more detailed explanations of the terms, users are encouraged to review the definitions on these websites or conduct their own independent research.
CASE NAME
Azadeh Khatibi et al v. Kristina Lawson et al
Overview
Plaintiffs challenged California’s mandatory implicit bias training requirement for physicians' continuing medical education (CME).
Details
Plaintiffs argued that the implicit bias training requirement violated their constitutional free-speech rights by compelling them to include discussion of implicit bias in CME courses taught by them when they would otherwise remain silent about such topic.
The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court held that teaching CME courses constituted government (rather than private) speech, and thus Plaintiffs had not stated a valid claim that the government had compelled them to engage in protected speech. The court noted: “If Plaintiffs disagree with the Legislature’s judgment in passing AB 241 [the law requiring implicit bias training], they can choose to no longer instruct CME courses for credit, as is their right, or err [sic] their grievances at the ballot box.”
Court
U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Status
Filed August 01, 2023 | Appealed
Relevant Law
First AmendmentLitigation History
Significance
This case was one of many free-speech challenges to DEI training and constitutes an important win for the pro-DEI side.