California's high court on Monday upheld the state's 14-year-old law barring preferential treatment of women and minorities in public school admissions, government hiring and contracting.

In a 6-1 ruling, the state Supreme Court rejected arguments from the city of San Francisco and Attorney General Jerry Brown that the law, known as Proposition 209, violates federal equality protections.

Opponents of the ban say it creates barriers for minorities and women that don't exist for other groups, such as veterans seeking preference.

The ruling written by Justice Kathryn Werdegar came in response to lawsuits filed by white contractors challenging San Francisco's affirmative action program, which was suspended in 2003.

"As the court recognized, Proposition 209 is a civil rights measure that protects everyone, regardless of background," said Sharon Browne, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented the contractors. "Under Proposition 209, no one can be victimized by unfair government policies that discriminate or grant preferences based on sex or skin color."

If San Francisco wants to resurrect the program, the Supreme Court said it must show compelling evidence the city "purposefully or intentionally discriminated against" minority and women contractors and that such a law was the only way to fix the problem.

Several environmental groups have asked a federal appeals court to disqualify a judge from a lawsuit over the Obama administration's initial six-month moratorium on deep-water oil drilling.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman overturned the temporary drilling ban in June and refused last month to withdraw from the case.

In a court filing Thursday, environmental groups supporting the moratorium asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to remove Feldman from the case because of his investments in several oil and gas companies. Feldman says he learned he owned Exxon Mobil stock a day before he ruled and sold it several hours before he issued the decision.

Last month, a 5th Circuit panel rejected the government's bid to restore its six-month ban on issuing new permits for deep-water drilling and suspension of 33 existing drilling projects in the Gulf of Mexico.

Prison officials can ban employees from wearing religious headscarves out of concerns they pose a safety risk, a U.S. appeals court in Philadelphia ruled Monday in a split 2-1 decision.

Prison officials have legitimate concerns the headscarves can hide drugs or other contraband, or be used by an inmate to strangle someone, the majority said.

The ruling dismisses a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of three Muslim women employed at the Delaware County Prison in suburban Thornton. The EEOC had said they were being forced to compromise their religious beliefs to keep their jobs.

The suit was filed against the Geo Group, a Boca Raton, Fla.-based contractor that formerly operated the facility.

After the prison implemented a ban on hats and headscarves in 2005, nurse Carmen Sharpe-Allen was fired for refusing to remove her headscarf, or khimar, at work. Intake clerk Marquita King and correctional officer Rashemma Moss, after some deliberation, agreed to remove their headscarves on the job.

An appeals court panel has reversed the murder conviction of a mother accused of driving her teenage son and his friends to a Southern California park where a 13-year-old rival gang member was stabbed to death.

The 2nd District Court of Appeal panel ruled 2-1 on Monday that jurors in the case of 33-year-old Eva Daley were given an "impermissibly ambiguous" jury instruction during the 2008 trial.

Associate Justice Laurie D. Zelon wrote that case records don't show the jury based its verdict on a legally valid theory, so the conviction should be reversed.

Daley had been convicted of second-degree murder for the 2007 death of Jose Cano.

Prosecutors argued that Daley wanted revenge because Cano allegedly stabbed her son six months earlier.

Domino's still has nightmares about a prank video posted on the social networking site, YouTube, that got two employees in trouble with the law and tarnished the pizza chain's reputation.

The Ann Arbor-based company became an instant Internet sensation in April 2009 after one franchise employee filmed another sticking cheese inside his nose, sneezing on the food and implying it would be delivered to customers from the store they worked at in Conover, N.C.

Both were fired, and the store closed several months later after sales dropped 50 percent. The two former employees were charged with contaminating food distributed to the public. Michael Setzer, 32, was found guilty and sentenced to 24 months of probation in March. Kristy Hammonds, 31, who was banned last fall from college, is still awaiting trial.

The YouTube episode "certainly was a wake-up call," Domino's spokesman Chris Brandon said. "Now we monitor (social media sites) every day. Someone on my team, it's their full-time job to monitor what's being said."

The episode reflects a growing problem of workers across the country, including in Metro Detroit, who like to gossip about the workplace on social networking sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. This has resulted in employers increasing sanctions against employees.

This year, 21 percent of companies with 1,000 or more workers have disciplined employees for violating social networking policies, compared with 13 percent in 2008, according to a survey by Proofpoint Inc., an e-mail security company in Sunnyvale, Calif. About 9 percent have fired an employee for these violations, more than double from 4 percent two years ago.

"For every case you see in the news, it's really just the tip of the iceberg," said Keith Crosley, director of market development for Proofpoint. "There are many more investigations and breaches that you never hear about."

In at least one case, a worker got into trouble for a photo that seemed to have nothing to do with his job.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has opened an office in Hong Kong with two attorneys leading the effort. Kelly Austin has joined the firm as a partner from General Electric Co., where she was Asia compliance and litigation counsel. The firm also is relocating partner Joseph Barbeau to Hong Kong from its Palo Alto office.

Austin has been based in Hong Kong since 2001. She previously advised GE's Asian business units on government investigations, compliance matters, and litigation. Her mandate now is to launch a practice focused on litigation and regulatory compliance in the region for her new firm.

Gibson Dunn's decision to open in Hong Kong with such a practice reflects the growing belief among international firms that litigation groups in Asia are set to take off. Over the past few weeks, Latham & Watkins launched a Hong Kong litigation practice and top Australian firm Mallesons Stephen Jacques recruited a senior Clifford Chance litigation partner to its Hong Kong office.

A public interest law firm is preparing to sue the Canadian owners of a pipeline that ruptured in southern Michigan and dumped hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into a Kalamazoo River tributary.

The Great Lakes Law Center on Monday sent Enbridge Inc. a notice of intent to file suit if a settlement isn't reached within 60 days. The letter accuses the company of violating the Clean Water Act.

The Detroit-based law center says Enbridge could face more than $26 million in civil penalties based on the Environmental Protection Agency's estimate that the spill exceeds 1 million gallons. The company estimates the total at 820,000 gallons.

A phone message seeking comment was left with Enbridge, which reported the spill a week ago.