October 2026
Fire Watch
Table Of Contents 03
06
Firm Victories
Reasonable Accommodation – Religion
04 Retirement
06 Did You Know?
05 Labor Relations
11 Consortium Call of the Month
Contributors: Bryce Bakewell
Cynthia O’Neill
Stephanie J. Lowe
Juliana Pech
Associate | Los Angeles Senior Counsel | San Diego
Partner Emeritus | San Francisco Associate | Los Angeles
Connect With Us! Copyright © 2026 Requests for permission to reproduce all or part of this publication should be addressed to Jacqueline Reid, Marketing Manager at 310.981.2000. Cover Photo: Attributed to pexels.com
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.
2
Los Angeles • San Francisco • Fresno • San Diego • Sacramento
October 2026
Firm Victories Partner Geoffrey Sheldon and Senior Counsel Jennifer Palagi Defeat Firefighter’s Petition. A female probationary firefighter was released from probation after failing to meet the fire department’s performance standards. She challenged the decision under the county’s civil-service rule that permits atwill employees to appeal discipline they contend was based on non-merit factors, such as a protected status or activity. LCW successfully represented the county’s fire department before the civil service commission. The former firefighter then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the California Superior Court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 to challenge the commission’s decision. The Court denied the firefighter’s writ petition and upheld the commission’s determination that the former firefighter had not met the performance requirements of the position.
Partner Joung Yim, Senior Counsel David Urban, and Associate Nicole Powell Convince Court of Appeal to Reverse $1 Million Whistleblower Retaliation Claim. More than $25,000 went missing from a police department. The city hired an outside investigator to determine what happened but stopped the investigation after the investigator shifted the focus of the investigation to a supervisor. The police chief maintained that the investigation should have continued. Several months later, the city declined to renew the police chief’s contract and terminated the chief’s employment due to budget-related concerns. The chief alleged he was terminated in retaliation for refusing to participate in what the chief alleged was an unlawful cover-up. At trial, the chief won a nearly
$1 million judgment against the city based on his claim for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5(c). After another law firm handled the jury trial, LCW took over the matter on appeal. LCW argued to the California Court of Appeal that the police chief had not engaged in protected activity under Labor Code section 1102.5(c) because complying with the city’s direction to stop the investigation did not violate any law. Senior Counsel Urban successfully reinforced this point at oral argument, and the Justices repeatedly asked the chief’s legal counsel to identify the law that was violated. The Court of Appeal adopted LCW’s reasoning and reversed the judgment, concluding that the police chief’s refusal to stop the investigation was not protected activity under section 1102.5(c). The Court of Appeal’s final disposition directed the trial court to enter judgment in the city’s favor, reversed the attorneys’ fees award, and awarded the city its costs on appeal. LCW’s appellate advocacy secured the reversal of the nearly $1 million judgment and substantially reduced the city’s exposure to attorneys’ fees at the trial-court level.
Partner Geoffrey Sheldon and Associate Duncan Dohmen Convince Arbitrator to Reject Bonus Pay for Light-Duty Assignment. A sheriff’s deputy with approximately 20 years of service had an industrial injury in 2022. The deputy remained on light-duty restrictions after returning to work in October 2024. Since the deputy’s prior team could not accommodate those restrictions, the county temporarily “loaned” the deputy to another team. Although the deputy performed some telephone intake duties similar to those the other deputies assigned to that team performed, the deputy had never completed the required testing and training, was not qualified to perform all the duties of the position, and was never appointed to the new position, which
www.lcwlegal.com
3
carried a 5.5% bonus. The union argued that the deputy was entitled to the bonus because the deputy performed some of the same duties as the bonus-eligible deputies. LCW convinced the arbitrator that performing some duties of the position did not entitle the deputy to bonus pay since the deputy had never qualified for or been appointed to the bonus-level position. The arbitrator noted that while the MOU expressly provided bonus pay when a non-bonus deputy provided qualifying relief for a deputy on a leave of absence for more than 20 days, the MOU did not provide that benefit for those—like the deputy at issue—who had a temporary light-duty assignment. The arbitrator concluded that the deputy was not entitled to the 5.5% bonus. Since the parties could have negotiated, and remained free to negotiate, a provision providing bonus pay for temporary lightduty assignments, the arbitrator declined to add such a provision to the MOU.
Partner Adrianna Guzman and Associate Juliana Pech Deploy Jurisdictional Defense to Defeat Bus Driver’s PERB Charge.
and also observed the employee using his cell phone and drinking a beverage while operating the bus. The transit district terminated the driver’s employment. The bus driver filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). The charge alleged unlawful termination, denial of Weingarten rights, failure to provide requested information to the driver’s union representative, unlawful surveillance, retaliation and discrimination, and violations related to protected leave. The case ultimately turned on a jurisdictional issue. Although PERB assigned the matter a case number under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), and had previously exercised jurisdiction over the transit district in another matter that had resulted in a published decision, further research revealed that PERB lacked jurisdiction over the charge. Instead, the transit district was governed by its own labor relations statute under the Public Utilities Code, which limits PERB’s jurisdiction to the processing of representation petitions. LCW’s position statement explained why PERB lacked jurisdiction. PERB issued a Notice of Case Number Change, changing the designation from “M” to “X,” and dismissed the charge later that week.
A bus driver had a physical altercation with a passenger. The transit district reviewed the relevant video footage
Retirement Sheriff’s Deputies’ Overtime Was Pensionable as Part of Their Normal Work Schedule. Orange County Deputy Sheriffs Robert Szewczyk and Rodney Morikawa were assigned to jail operations. Unlike deputy sheriffs assigned to patrol, jail deputies worked a mandatory “platoon schedule” of 80.5 hours every two weeks, which included a regularly
4
scheduled half-hour of overtime coded as “6FE.” When the deputies retired, the Orange County Employees Retirement System (OCERS) excluded that overtime from their “compensation earnable” for purposes of calculating their pensions. The deputies challenged OCERS’ determination by arguing that the overtime was part of their normal working schedule and therefore pensionable under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937. The California Superior Court agreed. It found that deputy
Los Angeles • San Francisco • Fresno • San Diego • Sacramento
The California Court of Appeal affirmed. It held that substantial evidence supported treating the deputy sheriffs who worked in jail operations as a distinct grade or class under Government Code section 31461 because of meaningful differences in their duties, schedules, recruitment requirements, and work locations. The fact that the County’s MOUs did not
October 2026
sheriffs assigned to jail operations constituted a separate “grade or class” from deputy sheriffs assigned to patrol and ordered OCERS to include the 6FE overtime in their pension calculations.
formally designate jail deputies as a separate grade or class was not dispositive. Because the half-hour of overtime was built into the regular schedule and ordinarily worked by the deputies who worked in the jail, the Court concluded that the 6FE overtime constituted “compensation earnable” and had to be included in the deputies’ retirement benefit calculations. Szewczyk v. Orange County Employees Retirement System, G065386 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
Labor Relations Photographing or Video Recording Picketing Activity, or Appearing to Do So, Supported a Prima Facie Interference UPC. SEIU Local 1021 picketed several locations within the City of Novato, including the parking lot of the City’s Administrative Building. Some picketers alleged they observed the Assistant City Manager (ACM) in the Administrative Building, holding her phone up to a window that overlooked SEIU’s picket line, which created the appearance that the ACM was photographing or video recording the picketers. SEIU alleged that picketers who observed the ACM felt intimidated because they believed she was photographing or video recording their presence on the picket line. SEIU filed an Unfair Practice Charge that alleged that the ACM interfered with its members’ protected activity under the Meyers-MiliasBrown Act (MMBA). The City denied that the ACM video recorded, photographed, or disciplined any picketer. The Public Employment Relations Board’s (PERB’s) Office of the General Counsel (OGC) dismissed the charge, finding that the allegations did not establish a prima facie violation. SEIU appealed. PERB then reversed the dismissal based on its determination that
SEIU had stated a prima facie case of interference. PERB reaffirmed that actual surveillance of protected activity—or conduct that reasonably creates the appearance of surveillance—can tend to chill employees’ exercise of protected rights under the MMBA. A union adequately alleges an interference claim when it asserts that an employer’s representative went beyond merely observing open and public activity near the employer’s property and either: 1) photographed, video recorded, or otherwise kept records of the activity; or 2) created the appearance of doing so. PERB rejected the view that picketing’s public nature eliminated the concern. It did not matter, at the pleading stage, that the picketing occurred in public or that SEIU and media outlets may have independently posted images of participants. PERB reasoned that an employer occupies a different position because of its authority over discipline. This decision is procedural and does not determine whether the City violated the MMBA. At this stage, PERB was required to accept SEIU’s factual allegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to SEIU. Service Employees International Union, Local 1021 v. City of Novato, PERB Decision No. 3048-M (Aug. 12, 2026).
www.lcwlegal.com
5
Reasonable Accommodation – Religion Providing Only a Limited Possibility of Reassignment Is Not Necessarily a Reasonable Accommodation. Five Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife employees received religious exemptions from the State’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. The Department concluded they could not remain in their existing positions but offered them an opportunity to participate in a reassignment process. That process resulted in reassignment only 14 percent of the time, and employees were terminated if they did not complete the process. The employees sued under Title VII, among other theories, alleging failure to reasonably accommodate their religious beliefs. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the Department, reasoning that offering the reassignment process satisfied its
accommodation obligation and that the employees failed to sufficiently participate in that process. The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment on most of the Title VII claims. Merely offering a process that provides only a limited possibility of reassignment is not necessarily a reasonable accommodation. An employer must make a good faith effort to offer an accommodation that actually eliminates the religious conflict and reasonably preserves the employee’s employment status. An employee’s duty to cooperate is triggered only after the employer makes an initial offer of a reasonable accommodation. Since factual questions remained regarding whether the Department actually offered a reasonable accommodation, the Ninth Circuit remanded for further proceedings. Cherry v. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 254763 (9th Cir. 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. An agency should consider using an outside investigator when the alleged harasser is a high-level employee or official. In those circumstances, it may be difficult to identify an internal investigator who can conduct the investigation with the necessary independence and impartiality.
6
An outside investigator may also be appropriate when allegations are especially complex or the investigation is likely to be time-consuming. Retaining an investigator with the capacity to devote focused attention to the matter can help the agency conduct a prompt, thorough, and defensible investigation while minimizing disruption to agency operations. (Disciplinary and Harassment Investigations Workbook, § 4, p. 19.)
Los Angeles • San Francisco • Fresno • San Diego • Sacramento
October 2026
Register for Our Upcoming Webinar! 2027 Public Agency Legislative Roundup November 4, 2026 | 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.
Visit the above link for more information.
Awards J. Scott Tiedemann
Eileen O’Hare-Anderson Honored with 2026 Justice Pauline Hanson Award
Honored with 2026 Spirit of Service Award
LCW Partner and former Managing Partner J. Scott Tiedemann has received the 2026 President’s Award from the Peace Officers Association of Los Angeles County (POALAC), recognizing his longstanding service and commitment to California’s law enforcement community. Throughout his career, Scott has advised public safety agencies across California and devoted a significant portion of his practice to the complex legal and labor relations issues facing law enforcement agencies. Congratulations to Scott on this recognition of his many years of service to the public safety community.
LCW Partner Eileen O’HareAnderson has been honored with the 2026 Justice Pauline Hanson Award by Fresno County Women Lawyers. The award recognizes women in law and law-related fields who demonstrate exceptional leadership, serve as role models, and help advance women in the legal profession. During nearly two decades with LCW, Eileen has distinguished herself through her service to public agencies and educational institutions throughout California, as well as her commitment to the legal profession. Congratulations to Eileen on this well-deserved recognition!
LCW former Managing Partner Melanie Poturica has received the 2026 Spirit of Service Award from the House of Hope Foundation, recognizing her longstanding dedication to the organization and its mission of supporting women in recovery. Melanie has supported House of Hope for nearly 20 years, including six years as Board President. We congratulate Melanie on this meaningful recognition of her years of leadership, service, and commitment to the community.
Honored with 2026 President’s Award
www.lcwlegal.com
Melanie Poturica
7
INTRODUCING
This year’s new partners
Megan Atkinson
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) is pleased to announce that Megan Atkinson and Yesenia Carrillo have been named Partner effective October 1, 2026. The promotions recognize Megan’s and Yesenia’s exceptional legal work, trusted counsel to clients, and significant contributions to the firm. As Partners, they will continue to serve clients across key areas of LCW’s practice while contributing to the firm’s leadership and continued growth. “Megan and Yesenia have distinguished themselves through outstanding legal work, sound judgment, and a deep commitment to our clients and the firm,” said
8
Yesenia Carrillo Firmwide Managing Partner Melanie Chaney. “They have each earned the trust and respect of clients and colleagues, and we are excited to welcome them to the partnership and look forward to their continued leadership at LCW.” Megan Atkinson, based in Los Angeles, focuses her practice on public safety employment matters and labor and employment litigation. She represents public entities in complex disciplinary proceedings and defends employers against claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in state court. Atkinson has been recognized by Best Lawyers among its “Ones to Watch” and by Super Lawyers as a Southern California Rising Star. Yesenia Carrillo, based in Fresno, advises educational institutions, public agencies, and nonprofit organizations on labor, employment, governance, and operational matters. A skilled advocate, trainer, and negotiator, she also brings significant civic and professional leadership experience to her practice. Carrillo has been recognized as a Northern California Rising Star and as one of Business Street’s “40 Under 40.”
Los Angeles Angeles •• San San Francisco Francisco •• Fresno Fresno •• San • Los San Diego Diego •• Sacramento Sacramento •
October October 2026 2026 October 2026
INTRODUCING
Our new senior counsel
Charles Hellstrom
Jenny Denny
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore (LCW) is pleased to announce the designation of Jenny Denny and Charles “Charlie” Hellstrom to Senior Counsel, effective October 1, 2026.
contribute significantly to the strength of our firm. We are pleased to recognize their accomplishments with their Senior Counsel designations.”
The Senior Counsel designation recognizes attorneys who bring substantial experience, sophisticated legal knowledge, and a demonstrated commitment to serving LCW’s clients. Jenny and Charlie are valued resources to clients and colleagues throughout the firm.
Charlie Hellstrom, based in Sacramento, advises public employers and litigates complex employment, wage and hour, and business disputes. He has substantial trial, arbitration, and motion practice experience and was part of the LCW trial team whose work in Burgess v. City of Sacramento was recognized by the Daily Journal as a 2025 Top Defense Verdict. Hellstrom has also been named a Northern California Rising Star.
“Jenny and Charlie exemplify the experience, skill, and dedication we value at LCW,” said Firmwide Managing Partner Melanie Chaney. “Both are trusted advisors who bring thoughtful, practical counsel to their clients and
Jenny Denny, based in Los Angeles, advises public and private educational institutions on employment, student, faculty, governance, disability accommodation, and Title IX matters. Her experience as a public school teacher, education policy leader, and federal government attorney gives her a distinctive perspective on the legal and operational issues facing schools and colleges. She is also a dynamic and highly regarded trainer for LCW clients.
www.lcwlegal.com • • www.lcwlegal.com
9
SAVE THE DATE
LCW 2027 Annual Public Sector Employment Law Conference
FEBRUARY 18-19, 2027 Optional Pre-Conference February 17, 2027
HILTON SAN DIEGO BAYFRONT
LABOR RELATIONS CERTIFICATION PROGRAM All workshops include both traditional training and interactive simulations to develop skills helpful to labor relations professionals.
October 22
PERB ACADEMY
December 03 & 10
BARGAINING OVER BENEFITS
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 pre-approval.
10
*Each class consists of two dates/parts. Participation in both dates/parts is required for certification. *Participants in the LRCP program have a three-year timeframe to complete all seven classes.
Los Angeles • San Francisco • Fresno • San Diego • Sacramento
October October 2026 2026 October 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: Can an agency deny a firefighter’s request to cash out accrued holiday pay solely because the firefighter is receiving Labor Code section 4850 benefits?
Answer: No, provided that the firefighter earned the holiday pay before beginning section 4850 leave and employees have an established right to cash out holiday pay. Section 4850 provides leave “without loss of salary,” which includes benefits that accrue merely because the employee remains employed. Courts have held that an agency may not deny a cash-out otherwise available to employees simply because an employee is receiving section 4850 benefits. (Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers’ Assn. v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 63, 67–70.) The result differs, however, if the requested compensation would have been earned only by actually working during the leave, or if the cash-out is merely discretionary rather than an established entitlement. Agencies should review the MOU’s wording and past practice. Denying an earned, otherwise available cash-out solely because an employee is on section 4850 leave may also create workers’ compensation discrimination concerns.
11
www.lcwlegal.com • Los Angeles • San Francisco • Fresno • San Diego • Sacramento •
11
New to the Firm Join us in welcoming the newest members of the LCW team. A.J. Thomas
Brock Seraphin
A.J. Thomas joins LCW as Senior Counsel in our San Francisco office, advising clients on labor relations, employment compliance, workplace investigations, executive employment negotiations, and governance matters.
Brock Seraphin joins LCW as Senior Counsel in our San Diego office, bringing extensive litigation experience and advising employers on complex workplace matters, including discipline, accommodations, investigations, and employment disputes.
Ailin Buigues Nevarez
Catherine Baumgartner
Ailin Buigues Nevarez joins LCW as an Associate in our Los Angeles office, bringing extensive experience in government contracts, procurement, nonprofit governance, operational compliance, and strategic legal counseling.
Catherine Baumgartner joins LCW as an Associate in our San Francisco office, bringing experience in employment litigation, workplace compliance, and complex civil litigation, including cases through trial preparation and resolution.
Brittany McKinley
Caz Ashjian
Brittany McKinley joins LCW as an Associate in our Los Angeles office, with experience in corporate governance, commercial contracts, strategic business transactions, and complex commercial litigation.
Angelo Villarreal Angelo Villarreal joins LCW as an Associate in our Fresno office, bringing experience in labor relations, collective bargaining, workplace investigations, employment counseling, and public agency governance and compliance.
12
Caz Ashjian joins LCW as an Associate in our Fresno office, focusing on employment litigation and workplace compliance, including wage and hour, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and leave law matters.
We’re pleased to introduce seven attorneys joining our offices across California, bringing a diverse range of experience and expertise to serve our clients and communities.
Los Angeles • San Francisco • Fresno • San• Diego • Sacramento • www.lcwlegal.com
12
December 2025
Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation Prevention Training for Fire Agencies Tailored for Fire Agency Operations and Culture | Compliant with CA Law
Why It Matters:
Fire agencies have unique cultures, and for agencies and their personnel to be successful they must have a workplace environment that fosters trust, teamwork and harmonious relationships. Conduct that constitutes illegal discrimination, harassment or retaliation can undermine those relationships, can negatively impact public safety, and can lead to costly civil liability for agencies – and some employees - alike.
Our public safety employment law experts routinely represent fire agencies in a host of legal matters and are familiar with fire agency culture, operations and challenges.
This training has been designed with fire agencies in mind to best protect agency employees, preserve agency culture, to help agencies remain legally compliant and avoid costly lawsuits. California Law Requires: • 2-hours of training for supervisors every two years (or within six months of promotion) • 1-hour for all non-supervisory employees every two years
What You’ll Learn:
ON-DEMAND Schedule Your Training Today! Contact Anna M. Sanzone-Ortiz at asanzone-ortiz@lcwlegal.com for live training. For On-Demand training contact on-demand@lcwlegal.com.
• How harassment, discrimination, and retaliation laws apply • The difference between unlawful conduct and “gray area” behavior • Realistic, fire-specific case studies • The responsibilities of fire employees throughout the chain of command, from firefighters to chiefs • How to report, document, and respond to complaints or circumstances that could give rise to complaints appropriately
Don’t Delay. Training Details: Train Today.
• 2-Hour Supervisory Training • 1-Hour Non-Supervisory Training • Available Live (virtual or in-person) or On-Demand • Certificates upon completion • Meets all SB 1343 & SB 778 mandates under California Government Code section 12950.1
• www.lcwlegal.com • www.lcwlegal.com/harassment-prevention-training-services
1
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore