L I E BE RT C AS S I D Y W H I TMOR E
F ire W atch
News
and
Developments
in
E m p l o y m e n t L aw
and
L a b o r R e l at i o n s
for
California Fire Safety Management
October 2012
LABOR RELATIONS
I n s id e t h i s
issue
Police Department Prevails Against Police Sergeant Who Appealed
His Demotion To Police Officer.
Labor Relations. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employment Litigation. . . . . . . .
Torts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Retirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2
4
5
5
D e pa r t m e n t
Public Safety Webinar Series. . . . . 6
Congratulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
AB 1234 Ethics Webinar. . . . . . . . . 7
AB 1825 Harassment Seminar. . . . 7
Pension Reform Workshops. . . . . . 8
LCW Webinar Recording . . . . . . . . 8
LCW Annual Conference . . . . . . . . 9
Firm Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Fire Watch
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.
©2012 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
Los Angeles
Tel: 310.981.2000
San Francisco
Tel: 415.512.3000
Fresno
Tel: 559.256.7800
San Diego
Tel: 619.481.5900
www.lcwlegal.com | www.flsaaudit.com
www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com
In a police officer discipline appeal hearing handled by Geoffrey Sheldon of our
Los Angles Office, a police department prevailed against a police sergeant who
appealed his demotion to the rank of police officer. The officer in question had
been a Sergeant for approximately 12 years. He had received a number of commendations, good performance ratings and was selected as one of three supervisors to lead his department's version of a SWAT team. However, more recently the
sergeant's performance had slipped. He received two reprimands for failing to
exercise good judgment in the line of duty, and then on March 17, 2011, he threatened and then assaulted a subordinate who had given him a "hard foul" during a
pick-up basketball game involving SWAT team members. While he was under
administrative investigation for that incident, he was discovered running one of his
city's automatic red light cameras while giving the camera "the bird."
The chief of police demoted the sergeant to the rank of police officer, and the officer appealed the demotion to the city's personnel board. During the hearing, the
former sergeant denied some of the factual allegations, claimed that the chief's
punishment was too harsh, and alleged that the department violated his statutory
rights under the Public Safety Officers' Procedural Bill of Rights Act ("POBR").
The personnel board, and later the city manager, rejected the ex-sergeant's arguments and upheld the discipline.
New California Laws Limit Access to Employee, Student Usernames
and Passwords.
Governor Jerry Brown signed two new privacy laws that will go into effect
January 1, 2013. AB 1844 and SB 1349 prohibit employers, colleges and universities from requiring or asking prospective and current employees and students to
disclose social media usernames and passwords. It also prohibits requiring or
requesting employees and students to log onto social media platforms in the presence of the employer or educational institution. Governor Brown tweeted:
"California pioneered the social media revolution. These laws protect Californians
from unwarranted invasions of their social media accounts."
AB 1844
Public and private employers are now prohibited from requiring job applicants or
employees to provide usernames and passwords to their personal social media
accounts such as Facebook or MySpace. In addition, employers may not require
applicants or employees to access or log on to personal social media in the presence of the employer. The law defines social media as including videos, still
E mployment L aw | L abor R elations | E ducation L aw | M anagement T raining
2
F i r e W at c h
photographs, blogs, podcasts, instant and text
messages, email, online services of accounts or
website profiles or locations.
Under AB 1844, employers can access usernames and passwords under two circumstances.
First, an employer can ask an employee to
divulge personal social media if the employer
reasonably believes it is relevant to an investigation of employee misconduct. Second, an
employer can ask an employee to disclose a
username or password for purposes of accessing an employer-issued electronic device.
Finally, an employer may not discharge, discipline, threaten to discharge or discipline, or
retaliate against an employee or applicant for
refusing to provide their personal social media
information.
SB 1349
SB 1349 prohibits public and private colleges
and universities from requiring current or prospective students or student groups to disclose
their usernames and passwords for personal
social media. Like AB 1844, postsecondary
educational institutions also may not require a
student, prospective student or student group to
access personal social media in the presence of
the institution's employees or representatives.
The new law does not affect an institution's
existing rights and obligations to protect against
and investigate alleged student misconduct or
violations of law. The statute also does not preclude educational institutions from taking
adverse action against a student, prospective
student or student group for any lawful reason.
Finally, educational institutions may not suspend, expel, discipline, threaten to take any of
those actions or penalize a student, prospective
student or student group for refusing to comply
with a demand to access personal social media
or for usernames or passwords.
California employers, colleges and universities
are encouraged to adopt or review existing
social media policies to make sure they comply
with these new privacy laws. Our Los Angeles,
San Francisco, Fresno, and San Diego offices
are ready to assist and provide guidance on
these issues if needed.
This originally appeared as a LCW blog post at
www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.
com.
EMPLOYMENT LITIGATION
Employee Tasked With Obtaining
Arbitration Agreement Signatures Of
Employees Did Not Agree To Arbitrate
Where She Did Not Herself Sign The
Arbitration Agreement.
Plaintiff, Gorlach, filed a complaint against
Sports Club and five of its officers on January
7, 2011. The complaint alleged causes of
action for wrongful termination, retaliation,
paramour sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, breach
of contract, and negligence. Sports Club
asserted that the court lacked jurisdiction to
resolve the dispute “due to the existence of a
mandatory, binding arbitration agreement that
Plaintiff agreed to be bound by.”
On April 15, 2011, Sports Club moved to compel arbitration. The motion asserted that
although Gorlach did not sign the arbitration
agreement, she assented to it by her continued
employment with Sports Club. Gorlach opposed
the motion to compel arbitration, noting that she
did not sign the arbitration agreement, and thus
there was no enforceable arbitration agreement
between her and Sports Club. She further contended that Sports Club had waived its right to
compel arbitration by taking steps inconsistent
with an intent to invoke arbitration. The trial
court denied Sports Club’s motion to compel
arbitration. Sports Club appealed.
The Court of Appeal held that Gorlach did not,
by remaining in Sports Club’s employ after
learning that signing arbitration agreement was
a condition of employment, enter into an
implied-in-fact agreement to arbitrate.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the
trial court decision denying Sports Club’s
motion to compel arbitration because Gorlach
did not agree to arbitrate her claims.
Gorlach v. Sports Club Corp. (2012) __ Cal.App._ __.
L C W L C W
October 2012
The Ninth Circuit Addresses What
Constitutes an Adverse Employment
Action.
Determining what constitutes an "adverse
employment action" is critical when an
employee sues for retaliation and/or discrimination. In order to be able to sustain a claim
for either retaliation or discrimination, an
employee must sufficiently prove that he/she
suffered an adverse employment action. This
issue was recently addressed by the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals in an unpublished
decision that reiterates the legal standard for
assessing whether an employment action is
"adverse."
In this new case, Carl Woods had sued his
employer, the University of Washington, and
his supervisor and settled with an agreement
that dismissed the case and completely released
the University from all liability. However,
Woods later filed a second lawsuit against the
University, making allegations of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and a similar
Washington state civil rights law.
In this second lawsuit, Woods alleged that his
supervisor retaliated against him for previously
suing him in the first lawsuit. Woods also
made an allegation of sexual harassment
against his supervisor for refusing to remedy
acts of insubordination by one of Woods' subordinates. Finally, Woods alleged that the
University discriminated against him when it
gave him first a "formal counseling" and later a
"final counseling."
The University and supervisor moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that
Woods had failed to demonstrate sufficiently
that the formal counseling and final counseling
constituted "adverse employment" actions as
defined by law. In order for claims of retaliation or discrimination to survive, an employee
must demonstrate that one or more adverse
employment actions were taken for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons. In other words, the
plaintiff must prove that the actions taken were
not for legitimate, non-discriminatory or nonretaliatory purposes.
The University and supervisor prevailed on
summary judgment and the Court of Appeals
affirmed. For an employee to support a claim
of discrimination or retaliation, s/he must show
that the employer took adverse action as a
result of the protected activity. The Ninth
Circuit reiterated the legal standard for establishing an adverse employment action: the
action to be "adverse" must negatively affect
the employee's compensation, workplace conditions, responsibilities, or status.
Applying this standard, the Ninth Circuit held
that the formal counseling and final counseling
Woods received were not adverse employment
actions because they did not affect Woods'
compensation, workplace conditions, responsibilities or status, even though the final counseling caused Woods to forfeit seniority for a period of time. Also, the Ninth Circuit noted, even
if the final counseling did amount to an adverse
action, Woods failed to show discriminatory
intent or that he was treated differently than
similarly situated employees outside his protected class.
Woods v. Washington, 475 Fed.Appx.111 (9th Circuit
2012).
NOTE:
We regularly advise public agencies on how to
deal with employees with serious performance
or behavior issues in the workplace. We also
defend agencies in state and federal court
against lawsuits alleging discrimination or
retaliation which were filed after the employer
has taken employment actions to address legitimate performance or behavior issues. In
doing this work, we have watched agencies
grapple with the issue of what steps to take
where there is a concern that an employee may
sue. It is important that your agency document all supervisory decisions made to counsel
or discipline employees having performance or
behavior issues. Taking action to try and correct performance or behavior is not unlawful
so long as the action is not done for retaliatory
or discriminatory purposes. Proper documentation of all discussions related to an employee's issues, and of all actions taken against the
employee to try and correct or discipline performance or behavior, will help your agency
defend itself in the event that the employee
L C W L C W
3
4
F i r e W at c h
alleged that the actions were taken for discriminatory or retaliatory reasons.
This originally appeared as a LCW blog post at
www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.
com.
TORTS
State Is Not Liable For Injuries
Employee Negligently Inflicts While
Traveling To Work From Mandatory
Treatment For Work-Related Injury To
Receive Workers’ Compensation
Benefits.
Plaintiff, Kenneth Fields, got into a two-vehicle
automobile accident with Linda Gadbois.
Gadbois died as a result of the accident and
Fields suffered severe injuries. Gadbois was
employed by the State of California as a prison
cook at Avenal State Prison (ASP). About a
month and a half before the date of the accident, Gadbois had been injured on the job. On
the date of the accident, she was returning to
work from a doctor’s appointment related to the
work injury.
Fields brought a personal injury action against
Gadbois’ estate and her employer, the State of
California. Fields argued that Gadbois was acting within the scope of her employment as an
employee of the State at the time the accident
occurred. He argued that Gadbois was acting
within the scope of her employment with the
State because employees injured on the job are
required to accept the workers’ compensation
medical treatment offered by the state.
Attending an appointment for workers’ compensation medical treatment is reimbursed by
the State Compensation Insurance Fund so that
the injured employee does not have to deduct
annual leave hours. The trial court, however,
rejected Fields’s arguments and granted nonsuit
in favor of the State after Fields presented his
case. Fields appealed this decision.
the “going-and-coming rule” articulated in
Blackman v. Great American First Savings
Bank (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 598, holds that an
employee is outside the scope of employment
while engaged in the ordinary commute to and
from the workplace.
Next, the Court rejected Fields’s argument that
the fact that Gadbois was entitled to death benefit payment because she died on a day she was
scheduled to work is analogous to payment for
travel expenses while acting within the scope of
employment. The Court held that the rule in
Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co. (1970) 2
Cal.3d 956—that an employer is liable for the
plaintiff’s injuries caused by its employee if the
employer paid its employee for their time spent
commuting to and from work—was inapplicable to this case. The Court pointed out that the
state’s death benefit payment policy had nothing
to do any benefit being provided to the employer; employees who died on a day they were
scheduled to work received the payment whether or not they were traveling to work.
Finally, Fields argued that the special errand
rule applies to this case. “The special errand
doctrine is an exception to the going-and-coming rule which states an employee is within the
scope of his employment while coming from
home or returning to it while on a special
errand either as part of his regular duties or at a
specific order or request of his employer.
[Citation.]” (Blackman, supra at p. 602.) The
Court also rejected this argument because it
was the employee, not the employer, here that
scheduled that appointment. Moreover,
Gadbois was not required to drive to her
appointment, and driving was not part of her
regular duties as a cook for ASP. This made
Gadbois injuring someone in an automobile
accident an unforeseeable risk of her job.
Thus, the Court affirmed the trial court ruling
granting nonsuit to the State of California.
Fields v. State of California (2012) ___ Cal.App__ ___
The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court
decision to grant nonsuit in favor of the State
of California. The Court first pointed out that
L C W L C W
October 2012
RETIREMENT
California Public Employees’ Retirement Board of Administration Approves 85
Percent Increase in Premium Rates for Long-Term Care Insurance Program.
On October 16, 2012, the CalPERS adopted a recommendation of the following actions for the
CalPERS Long-Term Care (LTC) Program: (1) Implement a rate increase of 85 percent for specific
LTC1 and LTC2 policies to be levied over a two-year period, beginning in 2015; (2) Offer a 10-year
long-term care policy with Retained Inflation (RI); (3) Extend the RI option to all policies with built-in
inflation protection; and (4) Include an Optional Daily Benefit Amount (DBA) purchase option for policyholders who dropped their built-in inflation protection or decreased their DBA after the 2010 premium increase.
The premium increase, effective July 1, 2015, necessary to stabilize the CalPERS Long-Term Care
(LTC Fund) and achieve a 10 percent margin is approximately 85 percent when applied over two-years.
Thus, the increase will be phased in over two years, beginning in 2015. Policyholders will, however,
have the option of a one-time, 79 percent rate hike if they elect to absorb the increase in one year
instead of the standard two years.
BENEFITS
CalPERS Approves Regulations Granting Amnesty to Employees and Annuitants Who
Voluntarily Terminate Enrollment of Ineligible Dependents.
CalPERS has been committed to conducting an audit of policy member benefits. This includes weeding out ineligible dependents that are enrolled for health benefits. However, CalPERS recently
approved regulations to grant amnesty to employees and annuitants who voluntarily terminate enrollment of ineligible dependents on or before June 30, 2013.
The dependent eligibility audits are set to begin as soon as the amnesty period ends. The plan to audit
public agencies is projected to begin in January of 2014. However, the results of the audit are prospective and CalPERS will not seek reimbursements on claims it has paid for dependents found to be ineligible for health benefits. Nevertheless, employers may choose to collect premiums paid on behalf of
ineligible dependents.
§
L C W L C W
5
6
F i r e W at c h
Presented by:
Laura Kalty
Partner
Los Angeles Office
Morin Jacob
Partner
San Francisco Office
Suzanne solomon
Of Counsel
San Francisco Office
Webinar 3: Preparing a Discipline Case that Will Survive Appeal
November 7, 2012 | 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM | Laura Kalty
This training explains how to assess a completed investigation report, determine whether/what discipline is appropriate,
and then create persuasive documents that will survive a disciplinary appeal. The training also covers the principles
of due process and other legal issues an agency must evaluate before imposing discipline.
Webinar 4: How to Win Disciplinary Appeals
December 14, 2012 | 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM | Suzanne Solomon
This training is directed towards managers and other agency representatives who will help prepare for and testify at
disciplinary appeal hearings, either at arbitration or some other forum. The training will describe how careful analysis
and documentation during the pre-disciplinary process becomes crucial at the appeal hearing, and will explain the
necessity of understanding agency procedural rules for the appeal, FBOR requirements for appeal hearings, and
when/whether to discuss settlement options and/or reinstatement. The training also explains current trends in various
types of misconduct and how they are viewed by arbitrators.
ERC Members: Individual Webinars - $55 | Entire Series - $200
Non-ERC members: Individual Webinars - $75 | Entire Series - $275
To register, visit: www.lcwlegal.com/PublicSafetyWebinarsFire
Register for one connection and send all of your command staff
and those responsible for investigations.
Congratulations to our Los Angeles Associate Stacy Herberg, who got married
to Nick Velloff in October 2012. We wish them much happiness!
L C W L C W
7
October 2012
AB 1234 Ethics Webinar
Mandated Ethics Training
Date:
Time: Cost: December 4, 2012
9:30 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.
ERC Members: $55; Non-Members: $75
If a local agency provides any type of compensation, salary, or stipend to a member of a legislative
body, or provides reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses incurred by a member of a legislative body in the performance of official duties, then all local agency officials must receive a minimum of 2 hours of ethics training every two years.
AB 1825 Harassment Seminar
Preventing Harassment Training To Supervisors
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Fresno and San Diego - December 7, 2012
Time: 9:30a.m. - 11:30a.m. & 1:30p.m. - 3:30p.m.
Cost: $100 per person
Location: LCW Offices
One of the key components of Government Code Section 12950.1 (also known as AB 1825) is the
provision requiring training in the prevention of harassment to all supervisory employees once every
two years and to new supervisors within 6 months of their assumption of a supervisory position.
Registration
Visit www.lcwlegal.com/seminars for more information and to register online. Please
contact Anna Sanzone-Ortiz at asanzone-ortiz@lcwlegal.com or 310.981.2051 for more
information on how to bring this training to your agency.
L C W L C W
8
F i r e W at c h
Agencies throughout the State have been struggling with the new pension reform legislation -- not only trying to
understand the provisions of the new law and how they should be implemented, but also responding to rumors
and concerns of employees about how the new legislation will impact their retirement benefits.
LCW offers a 45 minute, on-site workshop for your entire staff to explain the impact of the new legislation on current employees. Employees are encouraged to ask questions about pension reform issues that affect them.
LCW’s presentation has successfully quelled rumors and diminished unwarranted anxiety among agency
employees. We are ready and available to offer this service to both employees and managers, and can quickly
customize the presentation to address specific areas of concern to your agency.
To schedule a workshop for your agency or to request more information, please contact
Anna Sanzone-Ortiz at asanzone-ortiz@lcwlegal.com or (310) 981-2051.
LCW Webinar Recording
California Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013:
Everything Public Agencies Need to Know
On September 12, 2012, Steve M. Berliner, Chair of Liebert Cassidy
Whitmore's Retirement Practice Group, conducted a webinar on this topic.
To view a recording of this presentation make sure to register here:
http://www.lcwlegal.com/PensionWebinar
L C W L C W
9
October 2012
Save the Date
conFerence
toPicS
incLuDe:
Annual Public Sector
Employment Law Conference
Retirement
FLSA
MARCH 21-22, 2013
NEWPORT BEACH MARRIOTT
Our Conference is
geared towards public
agency management
and includes a series of
presentations that offer
practical lessons for
success in the workplace.
Whistleblower
Cases
Negotiations
Leaves
PERB
Public Safety
Disability
Retirements
Pension Reform
For more information, please visit:
www.lcwlegal.com/lcw-conference
Tweet with us
@LCWLegal | #lcwac13
L C W L C W
Records
Management
Investigations
Discipline
10
F i r e W at c h
Management Training Workshops
Firm Activities
Consortium Training
Nov. 1
“Managing the Marginal Employee”
Gateway Public ERC | Commerce | Brian P. Walter and Stacy Velloff
Nov. 2
“Bullying at School and the Workplace: A Growing Concern” and “Difficult Conversations”
Central Coast Personnel Council (CCPC) Consortium | Santa Barbara | T. Oliver Yee
Nov. 6
“Advanced Investigations of Harassment Complaints” and “Super Manager or Super Spy: The Use of Technology in Monitoring Employee Conduct”
North San Diego County ERC | Vista | Judith S. Islas
Nov. 8
“Front Line Defense” and “Managing Performance Through Evaluation”
Monterey Bay ERC | Watsonville | Alison Neufeld
Nov. 8
“Mandated Fact Finding under the Meyers Milias Brown Act (AB646)” and “Negotiating Modifications to Retirement and Retiree Medical”
East Inland Empire ERC | Fontana | Steve M. Berliner
Nov. 8
“Supervisory Skills for the First Line Supervisor/Manager Part I” and “Workplace Bullying: A Growing Concern”
South Bay ERC | Hawthorne | Donna R. Evans
Nov. 9
“Workplace Bullying: A Growing Concern”
Northern CA CCD ERC | Webinar | Donna R. Evans
Nov. 9
“Workplace Bullying: A Growing Concern”
Central CA CCD ERC | Webinar | Donna R. Evans
Nov. 14
“Difficult Conversations”
Humboldt County ERC | Arcata | Alison Neufeld
Nov. 14
“Employees and Driving” and “Public Meeting Law (the Brown Act) and the Public Records Act”
San Gabriel Valley ERC | Alhambra | Mark Meyerhoff
Nov. 14
“Accommodating Bad Behavior: The Limits on Disciplining Disabled Employees”
San Mateo County ERC | San Mateo | Jack Hughes
Nov. 15
“Front Line Defense”
Humboldt County ERC | Arcata | Alison Neufeld
Nov. 15
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
Orange County Human Resources Consortium | Costa Mesa | Jeff Stockley
Nov. 28
“Workplace Bullying: A Growing Concern”
Los Angeles County Human Resources Consortium | Los Angeles | T. Oliver Yee
L C W L C W
October 2012
Nov. 29
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation” and “Workplace Bullying: A Growing Concern”
West Inland Empire ERC | Diamond Bar | T. Oliver Yee
Nov. 29
“Accommodating Bad Behavior: The Limits on Disciplining Disabled Employees” and “Public Sector Employment Law Update”
Imperial Valley ERC | El Centro | Laura Kalty
Nov. 30
“Preventing Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in the Academic
Setting/Environment”
Southern CA CCD ERC | Webinar | Mary Dowell
Dec. 7
“Advanced Labor Negotiations Roundtable”
Southern CA CCD ERC | Anaheim | Bruce Barsook
Dec. 13
“Public Sector Employment Law Update”
San Diego ERC | Webinar | Geoffrey S. Sheldon
Dec. 14
“Essentials of Labor Relations”
Central CA CCD ERC | Webinar | Eileen O’Hare-Anderson
Customized Training
Nov. 1, 6
“Performance Management: Evaluation, Documentation and Discipline”
City of Alameda | Cynthia O’Neill
Nov. 2
“Management Training Series”
San Jose/Evergreen Community College District | San Jose | Laura Schulkind
Nov. 2, 28, “Performance Evaluations”
30 Novato Fire Protection District | Novato | Morin I. Jacob
Nov. 5
“Legal Update”
Turning Point School | Culver City | Michael Blacher
Nov. 5, 12 “Investigations”
Ventura County Fire Protection District | Camarillo | Laura Kalty
Nov. 5
“Managing the Marginal Employee”
California Association of Crime Labatory Directors (CACLD) Fall Meeting | Sacramento | Jack Hughes
Nov. 5
“Pension Reform”
City of Pasadena | Steve M. Berliner
Nov. 6
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
City of Fresno | Shelline Bennett
Nov. 7
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation and Management Training”
Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District | Fairfield | Jack Hughes
Nov. 7
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
City of Glendale | Donna R. Evans
L C W L C W
11
12
F i r e W at c h
Nov. 7
“Pension Reform”
City of Vernon | Steve M. Berliner
Nov. 7
“Pension Reform”
City of Daly City | Alison Neufeld
Nov. 7
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
City of Santa Maria | Elizabeth Tom Arce
Nov. 8
“Investigations”
California State University, Monterey Bay | Seaside | Laura Schulkind
Nov. 13
“Pension Reform”
City of Sonoma | Alison Neufeld
Nov. 13, 14 “FLSA”
City of Irvine | Peter J. Brown
Nov. 14
“Pension Reform”
City of Hermosa Beach | Steve M. Berliner
Nov. 14
“FBOR”
City of La Verne Fire Department | Richard M. Kreisler
Nov. 19
“Pension Reform”
Foothill Municipal Water District | La Canada Flintridge | Steve M. Berliner
Nov. 29
“ADA Sensitivity Issues”
Bay Area Air Quality Management District | San Francisco | Alison Neufeld
Dec. 3
“Preventing Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in the Independent School Environment”
Heschel Day School | Northridge | Michael Blacher
Dec. 3
“Interest Based Bargaining”
Cold Spring School District | Santa Barbara | Bruce Barsook
Dec. 4, 5,
10, 11
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
City of Tustin | Frances Rogers
Dec. 6
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
City of Fresno | Gage Dungy
Dec. 7
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
LCW Clients | Fresno | Gage Dungy
Dec. 7
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
LCW Clients | San Diego | Frances Rogers
Dec. 7
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
LCW Clients | Los Angeles | Laura Kalty
Dec. 7
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
LCW Clients | San Francisco | Kelly Tuffo
Dec. 7
“Pension Reform”
Madera County | Madera | Alison Neufeld
L C W L C W
October 2012
Dec. 11
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation”
City of Los Banos | Gage Dungy
Dec. 13
“Preventing Workplace Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation & Legal Aspects of Violence in the Workplace”
City of Hesperia | Laura Kalty
Dec. 14
“Performance Evaluations”
Novato Fire Protection District | Novato | Morin I. Jacob
Dec. 14
“Preventing Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in the Academic Setting/Environment”
Chabot Las Positas Community College District | Pleasanton | Jack Hughes
Speaking Engagements
LCW appreciates the invitation to address professional organizations and associations. To learn
how you can have a LCW presentation at your association meeting, contact info@lcwlegal.com.
Nov. 2
“Public Sector Investigations”
Association of Workplace Investigators (AWI) Annual Conference | Oakland |
Jack Hughes
Nov. 2
“Legal Update on Investigations, including the Faragher/Ellerth Defense and CA Specific Issues”
AWI Annual Conference | Oakland | Alison Neufeld and Suzanne Solomon
Nov. 2
“A New Paradigm for the CIO Contract”
California Community Colleges Chief Instructional Officers (CCCCIO) 2012 Fall Conference | San Diego | Mary Dowell
Nov. 2
“Handling At-Will and Temporary Employees”
California Park and Recreation Society (CPRS) District 4 2012 Bay Area Institute | Menlo Park| Kelly Tuffo
Nov. 6
“Preparing a Discipline Case that Will Survive Appeal - Police Management”
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore | Webinar | Laura Kalty
Nov. 7
“Preparing a Discipline Case that Will Survive Appeal - Fire Safety Management”
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore | Webinar | Laura Kalty
Nov. 7
“Pension Reform Act”
Orange County Chiefs of Police and Sheriff’s Association Conference | Santa Ana | J. Scott Tiedemann
Nov. 7
“Employee Discipline”
California State University, Fresno | Fresno | Eileen O’Hare-Anderson
Nov. 8
“Disability Boot Camp for Public Safety Managers: Everything a Fire or Peace Officer Manager Needs to Know About Managing Employee Disabilities”
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (CalJPIA) Risk Management Educational Forum | San Francisco | J. Scott Tiedemann
L C W L C W
13
14
F i r e W at c h
Nov. 8
“Caught in the Net: Tools and Tips for Managing Employees Misconduct and Other Issues Arising in Social Media Sites”
County Counsels’ Association of California Employment Law Fall 2012 Study Section Conference | Palm Springs | Frances Rogers
Nov. 12
“Law and the Fire Chief”
California Fire Chiefs Association (CFCA) Chief Officer Leadership Symposium | Fresno | Gage Dungy
Nov. 13
“Laws Impacting Background Investigations”
California Background Investigators Association (CBIA) Annual Conference |
Santa Barbara | Laura Kalty
Nov. 14
“Legal Update”
CBIA Annual Conference | Santa Barbara | J. Scott Tiedemann
Nov. 14
“Harassment”
California State University, Fresno | Fresno | Eileen O’Hare-Anderson
Nov. 15
“Personnel Rules Audits, Are Your Policies and Procedures in Mint Condition?”
Southern California Labor Relations Council (SCLRC) | Cerritos | J. Scott Tiedemann and Oliver Yee
Nov. 16
“Legal Eagles: You Have Questions, We Have Answers!”
Community College League of California (CCLC) Annual Convention and Partner Conferences | Los Angeles | Eileen O’Hare-Anderson, Peter J. Brown and Pilar Morin
Nov. 28
“The California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013”
Cooperative Organization for the Development of Employee Selection Procedures (CODESP) | Webinar | Steve M. Berliner
Nov. 28
“Layoffs: What Board Members Need to Know to Make the Tough Decisions”
California Council of School Attorneys/California School Boards Association
(CCSA/CSBA) Legal Symposium for Experienced Board Members | San Francisco | Mary Dowell and Laura Schulkind
Nov. 29
“Status of Statewide and Local Pension Reform”
League of CA Cities 2012 Municipal Finance Institute | San Jose | Steve M. Berliner
Nov. 30
“LAUSD and Stull Act, Teacher Evaluations and Related PERB Cases”
California Council of School Attorneys (CCSA) Annual Workshop | San Francisco |
Laura Schulkind
Dec. 4
“Ethics in Public Service”
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore | Webinar | Gage Dungy
Dec. 5
“Annual FLSA Update”
California Public Employer Labor Relations Association (CalPELRA) Annual Conference | Monterey | Peter J. Brown
Dec. 5
“Accommodating Bad Behavior: We’re Not Going To Take It”
CalPELRA Annual Conference | Monterey | Cynthia O’Neill, J. Scott Tiedemann,
Connie Almond
L C W L C W
October 2012
Dec. 6
“Strategies for Concession Bargaining and Unilateral Implementation: Bargaining With The End Game In Mind”
CalPELRA Annual Conference | Monterey | Richard Bolanos and Donna Williamson
Dec. 6
“Post-Employment Challenges: Goodbye Employee, Hello Legal Action”
CalPELRA Annual Conference | Monterey | Melanie M. Poturica and Jesse Maddox
Dec. 6
“Annual Labor Relations Game Show”
CalPELRA Annual Conference | Monterey | Melanie M. Poturica
Dec. 6
“Workplace Bullying: The Silent Epidemic”
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) 2012 Fall Conference | San Diego |
T. Oliver Yee
Dec. 6
“Legislative Human Resources Update”
ACWA 2012 Fall Conference | San Diego | Frances Rogers
Dec. 6
“Legal Update”
International Public Management Association-Human Resources Central California Chapter (IPMA-HR CCC) Meeting | Merced | Shelline Bennett
Dec. 7
“Preventing Discrimination”
San Diego/Imperial County Dean’s Academy | San Diego | Judith S. Islas
Dec. 12
“How to Win Disciplinary Appeals - Police Management”
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore | Webinar | Suzanne Solomon
Dec. 14
“How to Win Disciplinary Appeals - Fire Safety Management”
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore | Webinar | Laura Kalty
Dec. 19
“Elimination of Bias in the Legal Profession”
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore | Webinar | Laura Kalty
To view our current calendar of events, please visit: www.lcwlegal.com/calendar.aspx
§
Fire Watch, is available via email. If you would like to be added to the email
distribution list or If you know someone who would benefit from this publication, please visit www.lcwlegal.com/subscribe.aspx.
Please note: By adding your name to the e-mail distribution list, you will no
longer receive a hard copy of Fire Watch.
If you have any questions, call Anna Sanzone-Oritiz at 310.981.2000.
L C W L C W
15
L C W L C W
6033 West Century Blvd., 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
@lcwlegal
Copyright ©2012 L C W L C W
Requests for permission to reproduce all or part of this publication should be addressed to Cynthia Weldon, Director of Marketing and Training at 310.981.2000.
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, or 619.481-5900 or e-mail info@lcwlegal.com.