Source: https://www.lcwlegal.com/expertise/litigation-services
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 20:33:41+00:00

Document:
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore has a long track record of success in employment law cases and we have successfully defended our clients through motion practice, in jury trials and in appeals involving allegations of harassment, wrongful termination, discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wage and hour claims. Members of the Litigation Practice Group are trial lawyers who have obtained defense verdicts in a number of jury trials. We also regularly win cases at the initial pleading stage and through summary judgment motions. We are proud to have earned the trust and respect of our clients - counties, administrators, and elected officials - throughout California because of our effective advocacy.
We specialize in defending our clients in federal and state court litigation and have earned a reputation as a results-oriented, successful and efficient litigation firm. We are experts in all phases of litigation in both federal and state courts: pleading, discovery, motion practice, alternative dispute resolution, settlement, trial, and appeals. Our particular expertise is in actions brought by employees, former employees, applicants or other individuals alleging employment-related claims such as violations of: California Fair Employment and Housing Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Age Discrimination in Employment Act; Americans with Disabilities Act; Federal Civil Rights (§ 1981 and § 1983 claims); Fair Labor Standards Act; Meyers-Milias-Brown Act; Family and Medical Leave Act; wrongful termination; retaliation, and tort claims. We also represent our clients in administrative proceedings involving the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, the California Labor Commissioner, and the California Employment Development Department. We also regularly defend and handle declaratory relief and injunctive relief actions. Our litigation practice also includes all aspects of appellate work. Since 2000, our attorneys have been involved in over 80 appellate decisions. In addition to many unpublished appellate victories, our attorneys are responsible for several key decisions in California public sector labor law.
Our deep knowledge of wage and hour law enables LCW to remain on the cutting edge of wage and hour litigation to obtain successful outcomes in complex matters. LCW has litigated over 250 wage and hour cases for public agencies in state and federal courts, including dozens of class and collective actions. In addition to litigation initiated by private attorneys, we have also defended public agency clients in administrative hearings and litigation pursued by administrative agencies. We have successfully litigated cases involving the regular rate of pay, overtime exemptions, off-the-clock work/unauthorized overtime, standby and waiting time, meal breaks and “donning and doffing.” Most of the cases were class and/or collective actions and have included as many as 10,000 plaintiffs. We have also represented numerous public agencies in FLSA/wage and hour matters which were resolved through practical and innovative solutions before litigation was initiated.
Additionally, we have handled both individual and class grievances alleging violations of wage and hour provisions contained in applicable Memoranda of Understanding. When these claims are brought as class grievances we have been successful in having the class grievances decertified so that each grievance must be heard individually (the employees usually drop the grievances in such situations.) For example, LCW litigated the case County of Los Angeles v. LA County Employee Relations Commission resulting in a significant published decision preventing the union’s ability to arbitrate wage and hour grievances on a class-wide basis.
At any given time, the firm defends dozens of discrimination lawsuits, many involving claims of discrimination under FEHA and whistleblower retaliation under both state and federal law. We understand all of the facets of representing public employers throughout the litigation process, including representing elected officials and board members, high-level managers and co-workers, and appearing before governing bodies. We evaluate the lawsuit at every stage from both a cost and liability perspective so that our clients are continually informed of developments which may impact the litigation strategy and ultimate disposition of the lawsuit. We understand the importance of positioning a case from the outset for summary judgment, and we work with our clients throughout the process to realize the best possible outcome based on their goals.
Our practice is to establish immediate, open and collaborative communication with our clients to understand and assess the client’s goals in the litigation. We understand that mediation and other forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution is a part of litigation practice, and we work proactively with clients to evaluate settlement when it is aligned with their goals and to position the case for the best possible resolution at the optimum time. We regularly participate in mediations with employment law mediators throughout California and are skilled in selecting the appropriate mediator for the case, preparing for mediation, and negotiating the settlement.
Our firm is committed to professional litigation management so that all cases are handled efficiently and proactively. Our Litigation Manager works closely with the litigation team on compliance with ligation guidelines, budgeting and defense strategy. In addition, at regular intervals throughout the matter, a team of our litigators from across the firm convenes to share resources, insights, and strategies about each case. These are value-added components provided by LCW for which our clients are not billed. We also have broad experience with experts, including jury consultants, economists, statisticians and vocational rehabilitation experts. Our Litigation Support Specialist and paralegals manage e-discovery and provide specialized trial support at a much lower rate than outside technical consultants.
At the outset of the litigation, LCW provides a detailed case analysis and plan outlining the initial case strategy, and communicates regularly with our clients on the execution of the plan. We also create a detailed budget for each phase of the litigation and review and update this budget at regular intervals and discuss any necessary changes with the client.
Ellins v. City of Sierra Madre [244 Cal.App.4th 445] – LCW attorneys Laura J. Kalty and Danny Y. Yoosuccessfully represented the City in upholding its termination of police officer John Ellins for CLETS violations and insubordination. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the City gave sufficient notice of the nature of the investigation prior to Officer Ellins' interrogation pursuant to the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR), and clarified that "reasonable" notice is required in order to allow an employee the opportunity to "meaningfully consult" with his/her representative. At the Court of Appeal, the issue was limited to whether the City had properly notified Ellins of the nature of the investigation "prior to" his interrogation under the POBR. Ellins argued that he did not have a meaningful opportunity to consult with his attorney about the specific nature of the investigation. The Court of Appeal disagreed and held that while an officer should be notified of the nature of the investigation "reasonably prior to" the interrogation, the agency can delay disclosure "if it has reason to believe that earlier disclosure would jeopardize the safety of any interested parties or the integrity of evidence under the officer's control." However, after disclosure of the nature of the investigation – even if it is immediately prior to the interrogation – the agency must give the officer a meaningful opportunity to consult with his or her representative. Although this was a case decided under the POBR, the application of this decision will also likely apply to the Firefighter Bill of Rights (FBOR). The FBOR was modeled after the POBR, and the language in Government Code section 3253(c) in the FBOR is virtually identical to Government Code section 3303(c) in the POBR.
County of Los Angeles v. Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, et al. [234 Cal.App.4th459] – LCW successfully represented the County in a case where after entering into MOUs, two public safety unions filed "class" grievances on behalf of approximately 10,000 current or former employees seeking MOU overtime pay for "donning and doffing" activities, as well as overtime for "off-the-clock" supervisory activities. After the County's Employee Relations Commission granted the unions' request for class arbitration, the County and its Sheriff's Department sued the Commission and the two unions for declaratory relief, injunctive relief and a writ of mandate. The unions, in turn, filed a cross-complaint seeking to litigate their 10,000 members' contractual overtime claims in a class action venued in Superior Court. Ultimately, the Court of Appeal issued a published opinion siding with the County/Sheriff's Department, i.e., the Court of Appeal held that since the parties never contracted for "class" arbitration the only way the various overtime claims could be pursued was in individual arbitrations.
Steinert v. City of Covina [146 Cal.App.4th 458] – The Court of Appeal held that a peace officer was not entitled to the protections of the Act when asked questions by her supervisor in the ordinary course of duty where the supervisor did not suspect that the officer had engaged in serious misconduct.
Our attorneys are experts in all phases of litigation in both Federal and State courts: pleading, discovery, motion practice - including summary judgments and summary adjudications, alternative dispute resolution, settlement and trial. For more information, visit the Litigation Services section of our website.
Davenport v. State Center Community College District – Federal Court. Former professor sued the District alleging that it terminated him in retaliation for him allegedly filing a sexual harassment complaint. We were successful in dismissing Davenport's state law claims at the motion to dismiss stage, partially dismissing his federal retaliation claim in the second motion to dismiss, and later successful on his federal claims in a motion for summary judgment.
Crosby v. South Orange Community College District - the Court of Appeal held that a college could impose reasonable time, place and manner regulations on the use of internet access in a college library.
Henderson v. Victor Valley Community College District Board of Trustees - multiple cause of action case in which one cause of action was dismissed at the demurrer stage. A motion for summary adjudication was awarded for additional causes of action and a court trial was won on the rescission cause of action. The remaining cause of action for defamation was settled by the individual plaintiff.
De O'Campo v. Los Angeles Unified School District – in this 4 plaintiff case alleging gender and race discrimination, a summary judgment was awarded in favor of the District.
Johnson & Holley v. Los Angeles Unified School District - Six-week bench trial of retaliation, wrongful termination, violation of Education Code Section 45192 causes of action. The decision for District on all causes.
Waldrep v. Los Angeles Unified School District and Krupin v. Los Angeles Unified School District - summary judgments obtained on these two separate, but related cases, brought by teachers claiming race discrimination and retaliation.
Davenport v. State Center Community College District – in this unpublished case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the termination of a tenured faculty member on the grounds of dishonesty and evident unfitness for service.
Tatum v. Chaffey Community College District - obtained summary judgment against a faculty member who breached his sabbatical leave agreement with the district, and successfully defended the judgment in excess of $100,000 on appeal.
White v. Antelope Valley College – summary judgment obtaining a complete dismissal in this case which alleged Title VII discrimination (race and gender), age discrimination, retaliation, disparate treatment and disparate impact.
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore has a long track record of success in employment law cases and we have successfully defended our clients through motion practice, in jury trials and in appeals involving allegations of harassment, wrongful termination, discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, and wage and hour claims. Members of the Litigation Practice Group are trial lawyers who have obtained defense verdicts in a number of jury trials. We also regularly win cases at the initial pleading stage and through summary judgment motions. We are proud to have earned the trust and respect of our clients - private schools and colleges - throughout California because of our effective advocacy.
We specialize in defending our clients in federal and state court litigation and have earned a reputation as a results-oriented, successful and efficient litigation firm. We are experts in all phases of litigation in both federal and state courts: pleading, discovery, motion practice, alternative dispute resolution, settlement, trial, and appeals. Our particular expertise is in actions brought by employees, former employees, applicants or other individuals alleging employment-related claims such as violations of: California Fair Employment and Housing Act; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Age Discrimination in Employment Act; Americans with Disabilities Act; Federal Civil Rights (§ 1981 and § 1983 claims); Fair Labor Standards Act; Meyers-Milias-Brown Act; Family and Medical Leave Act; wrongful termination; retaliation, and tort claims. We also represent our clients in administrative proceedings involving the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the U.S. Department of Labor, the California Labor Commissioner, and the California Employment Development Department. We also regularly defend and handle declaratory relief and injunctive relief actions. Our litigation practice also includes all aspects of appellate work. Since 2000, our attorneys have been involved in over 80 appellate decisions. In addition to many unpublished appellate victories, our attorneys are responsible for several key decisions in California labor law.
When litigation arises, the best defense combines zealous advocacy with a creative and cost-effective strategy. In this regard, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore’s knowledge and experience managing the day-to-day, distinctive issues that affect our preschool, K-12 and higher education clients, and deep bench of private education attorneys, sets us apart. Our unique understanding of private educational institutions' needs enables us to hit the ground running when they reach out to us for help resolving disputes.
We represent our clients in both state and federal court, as well as before administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE).
We have also been very successful in enforcing the arbitration provisions that many private educational institutions now include in their employment contracts and enrollment agreements, and compelling plaintiffs to pursue their claims in private arbitration.
We litigate all types of issues involving employees, parents, and students, including claims for wage and hour violations, wrongful termination, discrimination and harassment, defamation and breach of contract. We have a proven track record of obtaining successful results in both jury and bench trials, although we strive to dispose of litigation matters as early and efficiently as possible via our creative motions practice.
It sometimes makes sense to resolve a dispute through mutual agreement before it escalates in order to avoid the time, resources, and distraction involved in defending a protracted litigation. We employ a wide array of tools to help private educational institutions achieve this goal, including mediation and other uniquely designed courses of action.
At any given time, the firm defends dozens of discrimination lawsuits, many involving claims of discrimination under FEHA and whistleblower retaliation under both state and federal law. We understand all of the facets of representing private education institutions throughout the litigation process, including representing elected officials and board members, high-level managers and co-workers, and appearing before governing bodies. We evaluate the lawsuit at every stage from both a cost and liability perspective so that our clients are continually informed of developments which may impact the litigation strategy and ultimate disposition of the lawsuit. We understand the importance of positioning a case from the outset for summary judgment, and we work with our clients throughout the process to realize the best possible outcome based on their goals.

References: § 1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1983