Issuu

September 2026

Briefing Room

Table Of Contents 03

Firm Victories

06 Retaliation Did You Know?

First Amendment

Religious Accommodation

Consortium Call Of The Month

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

Juliana Pech Associate | Los Angeles

Connect With Us!

Briefing Room is published monthly for the benefit of the clients of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. The information in Briefing Room 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.

www.lcwlegal.com

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. 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.

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

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).

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 student-staff 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.

• Generational diversity is increasingly important as public safety agencies prepare for leadership transitions and a changing workforce. Employees from different generations may bring distinct experiences, communication styles, workplace expectations, and technological skills. Agencies that recognize and respond to these differences will be better positioned to recruit and retain employees, transfer institutional knowledge, and develop future leaders. As a best practice, public safety agencies should train supervisors to understand generational differences, encourage collaboration among employees at different career stages, and provide professional-development opportunities through training, mentorship, job-shadowing, conferences, and management-development programs.

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.

Answer: Question:

If an applicant indicates on their job application that they cannot perform the job with or without accommodations – can the employer cut them during the initial application review steps or must the employer engage with the applicant further?

It is unusual for an applicant to apply for a job they cannot perform. Could this be a miscommunication or typo on the application? An applicant who cannot perform the essential functions of the position, even with reasonable accommodation, cannot state a claim for disability discrimination (2 Cal. Code Regs section 11066(a)). But, California employers do have an “affirmative duty to make reasonable accommodation(s) for the disability of any individual applicant … if the employer … knows of the disability, unless the employer … can demonstrate, after engaging in the interactive process, that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship.” (2 Cal. Code Regs section 11068(a)). Because the application implies that the applicant has a disability, at a minimum, the employer should confirm in writing with the applicant whether: 1) the applicant has a disability (without requiring the applicant to name the disability); and 2) if so, is the applicant requesting a reasonable accommodation.

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

Liebert Cassidy Whitmore