Issuu

September 2026

Fire Watch

Table Of Contents 03

Firm Victories Labor Relations

Retaliation Did You Know?

First Amendment

Consortium Call Of The Month

Religious Accommodation

Contributors: Bryce Bakewell Associate | Los Angeles Cynthia O’Neill Partner Emeritus | San Francisco

Juliana Pech Associate | Los Angeles

Connect With Us!

Fire Watch is published monthly for the benefit of the clients of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. The information in Fire Watch should not be acted on without professional advice. To contact us, please call 310.981.2000, 415.512.3000, 559.256.7800, 916.584.7000 or 619.481.5900 or e-mail info@lcwlegal.com.

Los Angeles • San Francisco • Fresno • San Diego • Sacramento

September 2026

firm victories Associate Attorney Chris Frederick Defeats Challenge To Detention Services Officer’s Discipline. A county issued a five-day suspension to a Detention Services Officer based on the officer’s horseplay with juvenile detainees and repeated failures to properly document significant incidents. The civil service commission upheld the suspension, and the officer filed a writ petition to overturn the commission’s decision. The California Superior Court issued a tentative ruling for the county and found that the commission’s findings were supported by the evidence, the findings supported the disciplinary decision, and the five-day suspension was not an abuse of discretion. The officer’s counsel submitted on the tentative ruling, eliminating the need for oral argument. The Court adopted its tentative ruling as the final order and denied the petition.

Labor Relations

County Did Not Give Union Access To, Or Advance Notice Of, New Employee Orientation. The County of San Mateo hired hundreds of temporary Elections Division employees for the March 2024 election. These employees attended mandatory onboarding sessions where they received system access, completed required training and employment forms, and took the constitutional loyalty oath. The County did not give SEIU Local 521 advance notice of the sessions, allow the union to attend, or negotiate over the terms of union access to the orientation. Local 521 filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB noted that this case was its first opportunity to interpret and apply the provisions of the 2017 Public Employee Communication Chapter (PECC) regarding exclusive representative access to new employee orientations. (Gov. Code section 3556(a).) The County argued that the parties’ MOU satisfied its obligations because it allowed the union to participate in separate, optional new employee benefits orientations and to arrange later meetings with employees who did not attend. PERB disagreed and found that both the mandatory onboarding sessions and the optional benefits orientations were part of the County’s new employee orientation process. PERB held that the PECC required the County to provide the union access to both, give the union at least 10 days’ advance notice, and negotiate over the structure, time, and manner of access. www.lcwlegal.com

PERB also found that the MOU did not waive the union’s statutory rights. Although parties may negotiate different orientation procedures, any waiver of statutory rights must be clear and unmistakable. Here, the MOU addressed benefits orientations but did not mention the 10 days’ advance notice or access to new employee orientations. PERB ordered the County to provide the required notice and access, negotiate with Local 521 over access to the onboarding sessions, and proceed to compulsory interest arbitration if the parties could not agree. PERB also ordered the County to reimburse the union for certain losses or increased costs caused by the violations and post notices regarding the decision. SEIU, Local 521 v. County of San Mateo, PERB Decision No. 3044-M (July 24, 2026).

PERB Finds City Unilaterally Changed Educational Incentive Pay Criteria. The City of Pleasanton’s MOU with AFSCME Local 955 provided educational incentive pay to employees at the top salary step who held a college degree that exceeded the minimum qualifications for their position. In 2017, the City and Local 955 revised several job descriptions to allow experience to substitute for the college degree. Up until February 2023, the City continued providing incentive pay for employees with degrees who worked under the revised job descriptions, which now stated that holding a degree was an optional, as opposed to minimum, qualification. Then in May 2023, the City interpreted the education incentive pay criteria to mean that the degree listed in the revised job description was still a minimum qualification, such that an employee holding the listed degree met—but did not exceed—the minimum requirement, and was not eligible for the incentive pay. The City denied new requests for educational incentive pay, revoked incentive pay previously approved, and announced that employees would have to repay amounts the City now considered to be overpayments. The City did not notify Local 955 or provide an opportunity to bargain before applying this interpretation. Local 955 filed an unfair practice charge that alleged that the City made a unilateral change in the criteria for educational incentive pay. PERB held that the City violated the MMBA by using different criteria to award educational incentive pay; applying the new criteria to withhold the pay; and requiring repayment of the pay provided under the City’s previous criteria. PERB held that the City departed from the MOU, the negotiated job descriptions, and its established practice. PERB ordered the City to return to the eligibility criteria it applied as of February 2023, withdraw the repayment decision, make affected employees and Local 955 whole with interest, and provide notice and an opportunity to bargain before making similar changes. Pleasanton City Employees Association v. City of Pleasanton, PERB Decision No. 3043-M (July 23, 2026).

ON-DEMAND TRAINING

Don’t Delay. Train Today. Visit our website for all our on-demand offerings: www.lcwlegal.com/events-and-training/on-demand-training

Los Angeles • San Francisco • Fresno • San Diego • Sacramento

September 2026

First Amendment District Could Discipline Social Worker For On-Duty Speech In Violation Of Policy. Roderick E. Theis II, a licensed clinical social worker, worked for the InterMountain Education Service District (IMESD) as an Education Specialist. His duties included meeting individually with students in his office, administering assessments, and preparing reports. Theis displayed three children’s books in his office: two books that conveyed the message that gender is binary and cannot be changed; and a third book that used allegory to comment on transgender issues. After receiving a complaint, IMESD investigated and concluded that displaying the books while meeting with students was a bias incident in violation of its policy. IMESD directed Theis to stop displaying the books in his school offices and warned that noncompliance could result in discipline, including termination. www.lcwlegal.com

Theis sued IMESD and its officials under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that the directive violated his First Amendment free-speech rights. He sought a preliminary injunction permitting him to display the books. The district court partially granted the request, ruling that Theis could display the books when students were not present, but that IMESD could prohibit the displays while he was meeting with students. After Theis resumed displaying the books with students in his office, IMESD conducted another investigation and began disciplinary proceedings. Theis appealed both the district court’s partial denial of his preliminary injunction request and the district court’s later refusal to prevent IMESD from disciplining him. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the partial denial of the preliminary injunction. It held that Theis’s display of the books during student-facing duties was speech he made as a government employee, rather than as a private citizen. The displays occurred in Theis’ office; were visible to students; and occurred in the course of his work. Because his speech was part of his official duties, it was not protected by the First Amendment. In a companion memorandum, the Court also concluded that IMESD’s policy was neutral and generally applicable, and that Theis received adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard. Theis v. InterMountain Education Service District–Board of Directors, Nos. 25-5641, 25-8039 (9th Cir. 2026).

LABOR RELATIONS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM All seven workshops include both traditional training and interactive simulations to develop skills helpful to labor relations professionals.

17 & 24 NUTS & BOLTS OF NEGOTIATIONS 03 & 10 BARGAINING OVER BENEFITS December

September

15 & 22 PERB ACADEMY October

Click Here to Start Earning Your Certificate The use of this official seal confirms that this Activity has met HR Certification Institute’s® (HRCI®) criteria for recertification credit preapproval.

*Each class consists of two dates/parts. Participation in both dates/parts is required for certification. *Participants in the LRCP program have a threeyear timeframe to complete all seven classes.

Los Angeles • San Francisco • Fresno • San Diego • Sacramento

September 2026

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION Employee Provided Sufficient Notice Of Her Religious Accommodation Request. An employee worked fully remotely for the Permanente Medical Group (TPMG) when TPMG implemented a COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The employee requested a religious exemption and stated that receiving the vaccine conflicted with her sincerely held religious beliefs. TPMG asked the employee for additional information about her beliefs. Although the employee provided further explanation, TPMG denied her exemption request and ultimately terminated her employment for failing to comply with the vaccine mandate. The employee sued TPMG under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), alleging that TPMG failed to reasonably accommodate her religious beliefs. The district court dismissed her religious accommodation claims, finding that the employee had not provided sufficient notice of her religious objection to the vaccine. The employee appealed, asking the Court to outline how much information an employee must provide an employer to satisfy the notice requirement for religious accommodation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the employee’s religious-accommodation claims. It held that an employee does not need to prove the sincerity or validity of a religious belief when requesting an accommodation. Instead, the employee must provide enough information for the employer to understand that a religious belief conflicts with an employment requirement. The Court concluded that the employee’s exemption request and subsequent explanations gave TPMG sufficient notice of the religious conflict and allowed her Title VII and FEHA accommodation claims to proceed. Weiss v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc., No. 24-6609 (9th Cir. July 24, 2026).

Visit the above link for more information.

www.lcwlegal.com

RETALIATION Project Director’s Disclosures Were Not Protected Whistleblowing.

Wellpinit School District (District) planned a studentstaff trip to Hawaii. The District then hired an employee to work under contract as a project director for a federally funded grant. The District used the federal grant funds to pay for the trip without obtaining federal approval. The employee participated in the trip, but told his supervisor he planned to leave the District as soon as he could train his successor. The District decided not to renew the employee’s contract, and the employee claimed the decision was retaliation for his reporting of the alleged misuse of federal grant funds. The employee sued the District and its superintendent, alleging, among other claims, whistleblower retaliation under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 41 U.S.C. section 4712, which governs federal contracting and procurement. The District won a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the employee had not made an NDAA-protected disclosure and that the expiration and nonrenewal of his contract was not a discharge under state law. The employee appealed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District’s summary judgment. The employee claimed that he had disclosed the misuse of the funds by 1) his description of the Hawaii trip in an annual report that did not contain any suggestion of misconduct; 2) his rhetorical question to a supervisor (“So this is how we do things?”) when he learned that the federal grant funds were drawn without prior authorization; and 3) a telephone conversation with the U.S. Department of Education, during which a grant administrator said drawing from the federal grant for the Hawaii trip was fraud. The Court held these instances did not qualify as protected disclosures because they did not objectively communicate suspected misconduct. Even assuming his later conversation with the federal grant official was protected, the District had already decided not to renew his contract by the time of that call, so the disclosure did not cause the decision. Krzesni v. Wellpinit School District, 182 F.4th 1147 (9th Cir. July 27, 2026).

Did You Know?

Whether you are looking to impress your colleagues or just want to learn more about the law, LCW has your back! Use and share these fun legal facts about various topics in labor and employment law.

Under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act and the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act, an agency generally may not search an officer’s or firefighter’s assigned locker or other employer-owned or leased storage space unless the employee is present, consents to the search, a valid search warrant has been obtained, or the employee received advance notice that a search would be conducted. Even when one of these conditions is satisfied, a search may still implicate the Fourth Amendment if the employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy, although that expectation may be reduced if the area is routinely subject to workplace searches. As a best practice, agencies should not compel an officer or firefighter to permit a search of a home, personal vehicle, or other location outside the agency’s control. Instead, the agency should obtain voluntary consent or a valid warrant and involve appropriate law enforcement personnel. 8

Los Angeles • San Francisco • Fresno • San Diego • Sacramento

September 2026

Consortium Call Of The Month Members of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore’s employment relations consortiums may speak directly to an LCW attorney free of charge regarding questions that are not related to ongoing legal matters that LCW is handling for the agency, or that do not require in-depth research, document review, or written opinions. Consortium call questions run the gamut of topics, from leaves of absence to employment applications, disciplinary concerns and more. This feature describes an interesting consortium call and how the question was answered. We will protect the confidentiality of client communications with LCW attorneys by changing or omitting details.

Question: May a fire department post a staffing roster that identifies employees’ shifts and leave status in locations visible to all department personnel without violating the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act (FBOR) or employee privacy rights?

Answer: A department may generally post a roster showing employees’ shifts and whether they are on leave without violating FBOR or other applicable law. However, the department should avoid descriptions such as “administrative leave without pay,” which could imply that an employee is under investigation or involved in a disciplinary process and potentially raise a privacy concern. The department can reduce that risk by using the more neutral designation “administrative leave,” without additional qualifiers.

2027 Annual Public Sector Employment Law Conference FEB. 18 - 19 • HILTON SAN DIEGO BAYFRONT

www.lcwlegal.com

Liebert Cassidy Whitmore