Issuu

October 2026

Client Update

Table Of Contents 03

Firm Victories

Benefits Corner

Retirement

Benefits Compliance Question

Reasonable Accommodation – Religion

LCW Benefits Best Practices Timeline

Labor Relations

Consortium Call of the Month

06 Investigations

14 Did You Know?

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

Client Update is published monthly for the benefit of the clients of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. The information in Client Update 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

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 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.

October 2026

Firm Victories 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’

www.lcwlegal.com

fees at the trial-court level.

jurisdiction to the processing of representation petitions.

Partner Adrianna Guzman and Associate Juliana Pech Deploy Jurisdictional Defense to Defeat Bus Driver’s PERB Charge.

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 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

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.

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 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 sheriffs assigned to jail operations constituted a separate “grade or class” from deputy sheriffs assigned to patrol and ordered OCERS to include the 6FE

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

class was not dispositive.

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 formally designate jail deputies as a separate grade or

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.

October 2026

overtime in their pension calculations.

Szewczyk v. Orange County Employees Retirement System, G065386 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).

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, 25-4763 (9th Cir. 2026).

Did you know that we are on LinkedIn?

Follow Liebert Cassidy Whitmore on LinkedIn for upcoming trainings, firm news, legal updates, and insights from our attorneys.

www.lcwlegal.com

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-Milias-Brown 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).

Investigations California Employer Must Comply with CRD Subpoena Regarding Washington-Based Employee. A former SpaceX employee alleged sex discrimination and retaliation under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as well as other claims in an

administrative complaint of discrimination. Although the employee lived and worked in Washington, she alleged that SpaceX’s employment decisions may have had meaningful connections to California, including California-based management and human-resources personnel. The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) agreed with SpaceX’s request to narrow the CRD subpoena to

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

CRD determined it had jurisdiction over the retaliation claim, but concluded SpaceX had not provided enough information for it to determine whether CRD had jurisdiction over the discrimination claims. SpaceX declined to respond further. CRD petitioned the California Superior Court to enforce its subpoena. The Court ordered SpaceX to comply with the subpoena, and SpaceX appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed. In multistate employment matters, courts must determine what California connections are sufficient to trigger the particular statutory provisions at issue. The Court also stressed that CRD’s authority to investigate is analytically distinct from the ultimate question whether FEHA’s substantive protections applied to the employee’s claims. Because an investigation creates less potential conflict with another state than an order

October 2026

the jurisdictional issues before seeking information regarding the merits of the employee’s claims. CRD’s limited subpoena sought documents bearing on where the relevant decisions were made, approved, or ratified.

regulating employment practices, CRD may be able to investigate based on fewer California connections than would ultimately be required to establish a FEHA violation. The Court rejected SpaceX’s pronouncement that the FEHA can never protect an employee who works outside California. The employee’s allegations did not conclusively establish that all relevant employment decisions occurred solely in Washington, and the subpoena was intended to obtain information needed to resolve that jurisdictional question. This case confirms that an employer cannot defeat a CRD investigation merely by showing that an employee lived and worked outside California. If the alleged discrimination or retaliation may have been directed, approved, or ratified within California, CRD may use its subpoena authority to investigate the relevant California connections before determining whether FEHA ultimately applies. Civil Rights Department v. Space Exploration Technologies Corp., No. B346853 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2026; publication ordered Sept. 9, 2026).

Benefits Corner IRS Issues Proposed Regulations on Dependent Care Nondiscrimination Tests. On August 11, 2026, the Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released proposed regulations that clarify that the nondiscrimination requirements that apply to dependent care assistance programs (“DCAPs”) will also apply to Trump Accounts. The proposed regulations provide much needed and rare insight on how the departments interpret the nondiscrimination requirements. Internal Revenue Code section 129 allows employees to exclude dependent care expenses from gross income through a qualifying DCAP. Trump accounts are accounts individual employees may set up on their own and are treated like individual retirement

accounts (IRAs). If properly set up, employers have the option (but not the requirement) to make contributions that are excludable from gross income to the Trump account of an eligible employee or their dependent. Eligibility to participate in these benefits must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees (“HCEs”) or their dependents. HCEs at public agencies are employees who made more than $160,000 (adjusted annually) in the preceding year or were in the top 20 percent of the highest-paid employees during the preceding year. A DCAP and Trump account must satisfy four nondiscrimination standards: (1) the contributions and benefits test; (2) eligibility test; (3) owner concentration test; and (4) average benefits test. The proposed regulations provide information about how the IRS views and administers each component.

www.lcwlegal.com

The Contributions and Benefits Test

Average Benefits Test

The proposed regulations provide that a Trump account contribution program or DCAP does not satisfy the contributions and benefits test if they provide more favorable terms for HCEs than for other employees. The proposed regulations specify the benefits satisfy the test if they are designed to provide contributions and benefits on the same terms for all employees who are eligible to participate, even if eligible employees receive different amounts of contributions and benefits based on their different elections.

A DCAP or Trump account satisfies the average benefits test if the average benefits provided to nonHCEs are at least 55 percent of the average benefits provided to the HCEs. The proposed regulations provide a framework for applying this test. The proposed regulations provide an important clarification that this test only takes into account employees who had DCAP or Trump account benefits greater than zero during the plan year, made via salary reduction or employer contribution. The proposed regulations also reinforce that employees whose compensation is less than $25,000 may be excluded from the test. Employers may also exclude employees who are under age 21 and have not completed one year of service, or who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement if there is evidence that the relevant benefits were subject to good faith bargaining.

The Eligibility Test The eligibility test is satisfied if a plan benefits employees who qualify under a classification set up by the employer that is not discriminatory in favor of HCEs or their dependents. The proposed regulations interpret this as requiring eligibility classifications to be reasonable and established under objective business criteria. Reasonable classifications include specified job categories, nature of compensation (salaried or hourly), geographic location, and similar bona fide business criteria. Under the proposed regulations, a classification would be nondiscriminatory only if the group of employees satisfies either a facts-and-circumstances test or a numerical safe harbor. A facts-and-circumstances test identifies relevant considerations including the underlying business reason for the classification, the percentage of employees eligible under the program, and whether the eligible employees are representative of the workforce across salary ranges, where no one factor is determinative. The proposed regulations also describe a numerical safe harbor which compares the percentage of non-HCEs who are eligible under the program to the percentage of HCEs who are eligible. A safe harbor percentage is 90 percent, reduced by 3/4 of a percentage point for each whole percentage point by which the non-HCE concentration percentage exceeds 60 percent. Owner Concentration Test The owner concentration test does not apply to public agency employers since it is focused on ensuring that no more than 25 percent of the amounts paid by the employer for DCAP and Trump accounts are provided to shareholders or owners. Since public agencies do not have shareholders or owners, this test is not applicable.

If a DCAP fails to comply with the nondiscrimination rules, the benefits provided to HCEs are included in their income, but the benefits remain excludable from a non-HCE’s income. If a Trump account fails to comply with the nondiscrimination rules, the arrangement fails to be a Trump account contribution program only with respect to HCEs, but it will not affect the status of Trump account contributions for non-HCEs. Benefits Compliance Question Question: Our agency is preparing for the Affordable Care Act reporting that is due early next year. What is the difference between using code 1A versus 1E on the Form 1095-C, Line 14? Answer: Codes 1A and 1E are similar and often get confused with each other. Code 1A indicates the employer provided minimum essential coverage (“MEC”) providing minimum value to the employee, their spouse, and their dependent(s) that is affordable under the federal poverty line safe harbor. Whereas, code 1E indicates the employer provided MEC providing minimum value to the employee, their spouse, and their dependent(s) that is affordable under any of the three safe harbors: the federal poverty line safe harbor, the rate of pay safe harbor, or the Form W-2 safe harbor. While code 1A specifically indicates the use of the federal poverty line safe harbor, any of the safe harbors may be used with code 1E.

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

October 2026

Visit the above link for more information.

Awards Eileen O’Hare-Anderson Honored with 2026 Justice Pauline Hanson Award

Melanie Poturica

Honored with 2026 Spirit of Service Award

J. Scott Tiedemann

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.

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.

www.lcwlegal.com

Honored with 2026 President’s Award

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

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

lcw benefits best practices timeline Each month, LCW presents a monthly benefits timeline of best practices.

OCTOBER • Determine whether the IRS’s new affordability percentage of 10.22% for 2027 will affect whether your agency offers affordable minimum essential coverage. • Notify employees who participate in a flexible spending account (health FSA, DCAP, or adoption assistance) of any deadline to withdraw funds before the end of the plan year. Notice shall be by two different forms, one of which may be electronic. (Lab. Code, § 2810.7.)

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.

*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 2026

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

For more information on our upcoming events and trainings, click on the icons:

Consortium

Seminars

www.lcwlegal.com

Webinars

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: How should an employer correct an erroneous cash-out of an employee’s compensatory time, including repayment deductions and restoration of the compensatory time?

Answer: The employer can use a written repayment agreement. But the employer should not bring the employee’s wages below the minimum wage. The employer may restore the compensatory time all at once or incrementally as repayment occurs, as specified in the agreement.

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. Employers with a suspicion-based drug and alcohol testing policy may require testing when they reasonably suspect an employee is under the influence at work. The employer should document the basis for the reasonable suspicion in detail. For represented employees, the employer must meet and confer in good faith with the union before implementing the policy.

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

October October 2026 2026 October 2026

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 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.

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.

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.

www.lcwlegal.com • • www.lcwlegal.com

Liebert Cassidy Whitmore