Issuu

September 2026

Education Matters

Table Of Contents 03

Title IX

Business & Facilities

Title VI

Benefits Corner

Religious Accommodations

Wage & Hour 12

05 Arbitration

LCW Benefits Best Practices Timeline

Legal Updates

Consortium Call of the Month

Contributors: Jordan Carman

Stephanie J. Lowe

Amy Conway (Brandt)

Ailin Nevarez

Christopher Fallon

Madison Tanner

Associate | San Francisco Partner | San Francisco Partner | Los Angeles

Senior Counsel | San Diego Associate | Los Angeles Associate | San Diego

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

Education Matters is published monthly for the benefit of the clients of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. The information in Education Matters 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

Case Summaries

Title IX Federal Court Dismisses Title IX Lawsuit Challenge to California’s Transgender Student Athletics Laws and Policies. On August 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California dismissed with prejudice a lawsuit brought by the United States against the California Department of Education (“CDE”) and California Interscholastic Federation (“CIF”) challenging California laws and policies that permit transgender students to participate in school athletics and use athletic facilities consistent with their gender identity. California Education Code Section 221.5, subdivision (f), requires elementary and secondary schools to permit students to participate in sex-segregated school programs and activities, including athletic teams and competitions, and use facilities consistent with their gender identity, regardless of the gender listed in their student records.

The federal government filed a lawsuit, alleging that Title IX requires schools receiving federal funds to determine eligibility for girls’ athletic teams and access to sex-separated facilities based on biological sex. The United States sought a court order requiring CDE and CIF to issue statewide directives “prohibiting the participation of males in athletic competitions designated for females.” The court ultimately concluded that Title IX and its implementing regulations did not clearly notify CDE that accepting federal education funding required schools to exclude transgender girls from girls’ athletic teams and sex-separated facilities based on biological sex. The court therefore held that the federal government could not enforce that asserted requirement against CDE and CIF as a condition of receiving federal funds. The court did not decide whether California’s policies comply with Title IX or whether Title IX permits schools to allow transgender girls to participate on girls’ athletic teams. More information about the case can be found in LCW’s Special Bulletin.

Title VI U.S. Department of Justice Finds Berkeley Law Violated Title VI. On September 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a letter concluding that UC Berkeley School of Law intentionally discriminated against white and Asian applicants in its 2024 and 2025 admissions cycles, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President

& Fellows of Harvard College (2023) 600 U.S. 181. The DOJ began its review of UC Berkeley’s admissions practices in March 2025 and expanded the investigation to include Berkeley Law the following month. The DOJ relied on Berkeley Law’s application materials, public statements by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, internal communications, and applicant-level admissions data. The findings letter asserted that Berkeley Law used essays and other

• www.lcwlegal.com •

racial proxies to continue considering race after the Students for Fair Admissions decision. Among other things, the law school’s application invited applicants to explain how their perspective or experience would contribute to diversity and identified race and ethnicity as characteristics applicants could discuss. It also asked applicants to select a single “primary identity” from a list of racial and ethnic categories. The DOJ’s statistical analysis found that, after accounting for LSAT scores and undergraduate GPAs, Black applicants had 6.5 times greater odds of admission than comparable white applicants in 2024 and 5.8 times greater odds in 2025. The DOJ stated that Asian applicants were disadvantaged to a similar degree. It also found persistent differences in LSAT scores among admitted students. The letter stated that in the 2024 and 2025 classes combined, half of admitted Black applicants had LSAT scores below those of 95%

of admitted white applicants, and 37% had scores below those of 99% of admitted white applicants. The DOJ concluded that the magnitude and persistence of the disparities constituted substantial evidence of intentional discrimination. The DOJ is seeking a voluntary resolution agreement requiring the University to bring its admissions and oversight practices into compliance with federal law. The DOJ and U.S. Department of Education stated that the government would file suit if a voluntary resolution could not be reached. Berkeley Law denied the allegations, stating that race is not considered in its admissions decisions and that the school complies with Proposition 209, federal law, and the U.S. Constitution. Letter from Harmeet K. Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, to Tania Faransso, WilmerHale (Sept. 9, 2026).

Religious Accommodations 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. The Ninth Circuit held that, to satisfy the notice requirement, an employee need only provide enough information for the employer to understand that an actual conflict exists between the employee’s religious beliefs or practices and the employer’s requirements. At the pleading stage, the employee was not required to establish the validity of those beliefs or practices. The Ninth Circuit 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 Med. Grp., Inc. (9th Cir. 2026) 182 F.4th 1139.

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

September 2026

Arbitration Arbitration Agreement Did Not Apply to Disability Discrimination or Leave Claims.

of the agreement or conduct allegedly violating the agreement. The California Superior Court granted SDG&E’s motion, reasoning that the employee’s claims arose from her employment and termination.

An employee worked for San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) before being terminated. The employee alleged that SDG&E discriminated against her based on disability, failed to reasonably accommodate her, and retaliated against her for exercising her rights. She sued SDG&E under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and for wrongful termination.

The employee petitioned the California Court of Appeal, arguing that her claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration provision. The Court of Appeal granted the employee’s petition and directed the lower court to deny SDG&E’s motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeal determined that the arbitration clause was limited to disputes concerning or alleging violations of the employment agreement. Since the employee’s FEHA and CFRA claims arose from independent statutory and public-policy grounds, rather than from violations of her employment agreement, she had not agreed to arbitrate those claims.

SDG&E moved to compel arbitration based on an employment agreement the employee signed when she was hired in 2005. The employment agreement required arbitration of disputes concerning any aspect

Morales v. Superior Court (2026) 122 Cal.App.5th 239.

Legal Updates Proposed Changes to Title 5 Regulations: MESA Program and Standardized Attendance Accounting Cleanup. The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office posted a notice of proposed rulemaking titled

“Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement (MESA) Program” and a separate proposed rulemaking titled “Standardized Attendance Accounting Cleanup.” You can review the proposed updates here. A public hearing was held during the regularly scheduled Board of Governors meeting on September 15, 2026, from 12 p.m. to 5 p.m. Comments must be received by the Regulations Coordinator prior to 4:00 p.m., October 17, 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 •

Business & Facilities Court Refuses to Enforce Employer’s Arbitration Agreement Because Related Onboarding Documents Created an Unfair, One-Sided Dispute Process. In Cluck v. GEO Secure Services, LLC, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court’s refusal to enforce an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee because the agreement, when considered together with a separate confidentiality agreement signed during the same onboarding process, created an unfairly one-sided system for resolving employment disputes. In 2022, GEO Secure Services, LLC, (“GEO”) a private company that operates federal detention facilities and prisons on behalf of various government agencies, hired Jeffrey Cluck to work at its El Centro detention facility. As part of GEO’s standard onboarding process, Cluck signed an arbitration agreement requiring disputes arising out of his employment to be resolved through binding arbitration. The agreement stated that arbitration was not a mandatory condition of employment and gave employees 30 days to opt out. To do so, however, an employee had to wait to be assigned an employee identification number, prepare a signed and dated statement, and then send it to GEO’s legal department by mail or fax. On the same day, as part of the same onboarding process, Cluck signed a separate confidentiality agreement addressing matters such as confidential information, intellectual property, competition, and solicitation of GEO employees. Unlike the arbitration agreement, the confidentiality agreement provided that disputes arising from that agreement would be litigated in court in Florida, including claims that would likely be pursued by GEO against an employee. It also gave GEO the right to seek remedies such as injunctions if an employee breached or threatened to breach the agreement. After Cluck later joined a proposed class action alleging wage-and-hour violations, GEO sought to compel his

claims to arbitration. The trial court refused, finding the arbitration agreement unfair/unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. GEO appealed. The Court of Appeal agreed that the arbitration agreement could not be enforced, although its reasoning differed from the trial court’s. First, the Court found procedural unfairness in how the arbitration agreement was presented. Although employees technically had the right to opt out, the process of doing so was not evident. The agreement was presented as a standard document to new employees during onboarding. It contained a single signature line for an employee to indicate agreement, rather than stating the signature was optional or including a check box allowing employees to simply opt out. An employee who wanted to opt out had to wait for an employee identification number to be assigned, prepare a separate statement, and then mail or fax it to Florida within the first 30 days of employment. The Court concluded that this process did not provide employees with a sufficiently simple and realistic choice to decline arbitration. More importantly, the Court held that the arbitration and confidentiality agreements had to be considered together, rather than evaluating the arbitration agreement by itself. Both agreements involved the same parties, were signed on the same day as part of Cluck’s hiring, and addressed how disputes arising from the employment relationship would be resolved. The fact that the confidentiality agreement focused more specifically on confidential information, intellectual property, and competition did not make it unrelated to the broader dispute-resolution arrangement between GEO and its employees. Reading the agreements together revealed the central problem. The arbitration agreement broadly required arbitration of the types of claims an employee would most likely bring against the employer, including claims involving compensation, overtime, rest periods, discrimination, and harassment. The confidentiality agreement, however, permitted disputes involving confidentiality, competition, solicitation, and similar obligations, the types of claims GEO would be more likely to bring against an employee, to be litigated in court. As a result, the overall arrangement effectively

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

The Court also noted additional terms that favored GEO. Claims under the confidentiality agreement had to be litigated in Florida, where GEO was incorporated but far from where Cluck lived and worked; the agreement waived a jury; and it required Cluck to agree in advance that a breach would cause GEO irreparable harm and entitle GEO to seek injunctive and other relief. Taken together, the Court concluded that the agreements imposed substantially greater burdens on Cluck than on GEO. Finally, the Court declined to simply remove the problematic provisions and enforce what remained. The unfairness went to the heart of the parties’ overall dispute-resolution arrangement: employees were directed toward arbitration for their claims while GEO preserved a preferred court forum for the claims it was most likely to pursue. Under those circumstances, the Court

September 2026

required Cluck to arbitrate his most likely claims against GEO while allowing GEO to take its most likely claims against him to court. The Court found this lack of mutuality unfair and substantively unconscionable.

concluded that severing individual provisions would not be appropriate and affirmed the order denying GEO’s motion to compel arbitration. Cluck v. GEO Secure Services, LLC (Aug. 3, 2026, D087341) ___ Cal.App.5th ___ (certified for partial publication). Note: Employers should ensure that their arbitration agreements, and any related agreements employees sign during the hiring process, are fair and mutual. Employers should be cautious of provisions that require employees to arbitrate the claims they are most likely to bring while allowing the employer to pursue its own likely claims in court. Courts may consider these agreements together when deciding whether the overall arrangement unfairly favors the employer. Employers should also avoid optout procedures or other requirements that make it unnecessarily difficult or burdensome for employees to exercise their rights. Reviewing onboarding documents as a whole can help identify inconsistent or one-sided terms that could ultimately make an arbitration agreement unenforceable.

Benefits Corner IRS Issues Proposed Regulations on Trump Accounts. By Stephanie J. Lowe On August 11, 2026, the Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released proposed regulations with guidance for employers who have elected to make contributions to Trump accounts for employees or their dependents. Trump accounts are treated like individual retirement accounts (IRAs). Employers have the option to contribute up to $2,500 per year (adjusted annually after 2027) to the Trump account of an eligible employee or employee’s dependent. The employer contribution is excluded from the employee’s gross income for federal income tax withholding purposes. Employers that have chosen to provide contributions to Trump accounts should be aware of the following key points from the proposed regulations:

• Written Plan: To set up a valid Trump account contribution program, there must be a separate written plan. The separate written plan must specify the classes of eligible employees; the rules governing employer contributions including the amount and whether contributions may be made through a Section 125 cafeteria plan; the procedures for an employee to designate the Trump account to receive contributions; certification, notice, and reporting procedures; the plan year; the procedure for correcting administrative failures; and the procedure for notifying employees if their Trump account contributions are subsequently determined to be includable in gross income. • Reasonable Notification: Employers must provide reasonable notification to all eligible employees of the availability and terms of the Trump account contribution program.

• www.lcwlegal.com •

• Written Statement for Employees: Employers must furnish a written statement to employees, on or before January 31, showing the amount of Trump account contributions made during the previous calendar year. This requirement may be satisfied by including the amount on the Form W-2. • Certifications: Employers are allowed to rely on an employee’s certification that the employee or the employee’s dependent is the beneficiary; the beneficiary’s date of birth; and the beneficiary is eligible to receive a contribution for that calendar year. The employer may rely on this certification unless the employer has actual knowledge the certification is incorrect. However, an employer may not rely solely on an employee certification to establish that the recipient account is a valid Trump account. The employer must use a method reasonably designed to verify that the contribution is made to a valid Trump account. For example, the employee could provide the employer with a unique identifying number that corresponds to a particular Trump account, which the employer could then use to verify the account. • Notification to Trustees: When an employer makes a contribution to a Trump account, the employer is required to notify the Trump account trustee. If the employer subsequently determines the contribution should not have gone to a Trump account, the employer must notify the trustee. A trustee is a bank or non-bank institution that administers

Trump accounts on behalf of beneficiaries. • No Limitations on Trustees: Employers cannot limit contributions to only Trump accounts held by a particular trustee or trustees. • Cafeteria Plan Contributions: A Trump account contribution program may allow an employee to make a contribution via pre-tax salary reduction under a Section 125 cafeteria plan if the contribution is made to the Trump account of the employee’s dependent but not if it is made to the Trump account of the employee. This is because a contribution to an employee’s Trump account would provide deferred compensation, which is prohibited under Internal Revenue Code section 125. • Nondiscrimination Rules: Trump account contribution programs must comply with the nondiscrimination rules under Internal Revenue Code section 129. Eligibility to participate and the contributions and benefits under the program must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees or their dependents. The IRS is seeking electronic or written comments on the proposed regulations. Comment period closed September 25, 2026. A public hearing on the proposed regulations has been scheduled for October 15, 2026. Requests to speak and outlines of topics to be discussed at the hearing must be received by October 13, 2026. More information is in the proposed regulations.

Wage & Hour County’s Life and AD&D Insurance Premium Contributions Do Not Increase the Regular Rate of Pay and Overtime Compensation. A non-exempt hourly employee of the County of San Diego filed a lawsuit contending that life and accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) insurance premiums irrevocably paid by the County to MetLife should have been included in her regular rate

of pay, and thus, should have increased her overtime pay. The employee claimed the County’s practice constituted a willful violation of section 207 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The County moved for summary judgment. In analyzing this claim, the court first acknowledged that under FLSA section 207(e)(4), an employer should “include all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee” in the employee’s regular rate. However, the court recognized that “contributions irrevocably made by an employer to a trustee or third

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

The County argued that the gift, viatical assignment, or accelerated benefit options did not show that the policy was designed to provide employees with disguised compensation and evade the FLSA’s overtime rules.

The parties took opposing stances as to whether the group policy at issue constituted a “bona fide plan.” The employee contended that the court should follow guidance from a regulation issued by the Department of Labor, 29 C.F.R. section 778.215, which provides that a plan is not bona fide if it gives employees “the right to assign” benefits or the option to receive any part of the employer’s contributions in cash instead of benefits under the plan. Pursuant to that regulation, the employee asserted that the group policy did not constitute a “bona fide plan” because it had a term allowing gift transfers, viatical assignments for terminally or chronically ill employees, and an accelerated benefit option for employees with a terminal or chronic illness to receive a percentage of their life insurance before death.

The court reasoned that the group policy qualified as a bona fide plan because assignment provisions fell within a regulatory exception since the gift transfers did not provide employees with a payment and viatical assignments and the accelerated benefit option were limited to specified circumstances (terminal/chronic illness) consistent with insurance purposes rather than disguised compensation. The court found the plaintiff failed to dispute these limitations or argue assignments constituted FLSA evasion.

September 2026

person pursuant to a bona fide plan for providing old-age, retirement, life, accident, or health insurance or similar benefits for employees” are not included in the regular rate.

The court granted summary judgment on the issue of whether the premiums were properly excluded from regular rate of pay under the FLSA. Rossell v. County of San Diego, No. 24-cv-1872-L-DDL (S.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2026).

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 ••

September September 2026 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 Each month, LCW presents a monthly benefits timeline of best practices.

SEPTEMBER / OCTOBER • Determine whether the IRS’s new affordability percentage of 10.22% for 2027 will affect whether your agency offers affordable minimum essential coverage. • Review and prepare all documents for open enrollment. If you use a Section 125 cafeteria plan, ensure employees are signing salary reduction agreements during open enrollment. • 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 15 & 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 •

September 2026

best practices timeline 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 • www.lcwlegal.com •

Seminars

Webinars 13

Consortium Call of the Month Members of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore’s consortiums are able to speak directly to an LCW attorney free of charge to answer direct questions not requiring in-depth research, document review, written opinions or ongoing legal matters. Consortium calls run the full gamut of topics, from leaves of absence to employment applications, student concerns to disability accommodations, construction and facilities issues and more. Each month, we will feature a Consortium Call of the Month in our newsletter, describing an interesting call and how the issue was resolved. All identifiable details will be changed or omitted.

Question: A community college district client reached out to LCW for guidance regarding a permanent classified parttime employee who may be unable to return to work due to a medical condition. The client explained that the employee is not a CalPERS member because her part-time assignment does not meet the hours required for CalPERS membership. Typically, when the client has a permanent classified employee who may no longer be able to perform the essential functions of their position due to a medical condition, they would evaluate whether the disability retirement process applies. In this case, since the employee is not a CalPERS member, the client wanted to know whether they were required, or even able to initiate/file for disability retirement on the employee’s behalf. The client asked: if disability retirement does not apply because she is not a CalPERS member, is there a different process the District should follow before considering separation based on an inability to return to work?

Answer: The LCW attorney explained that the obligation to affirmatively file for disability retirement is a specific Government Code requirement applicable to CalPERS. Therefore, the District was not under an obligation to affirmatively file for disability retirement for a non-CalPERS employee. However, the attorney pointed out a couple of caveats. First, the client needed to make sure that the employee is actually a non-CalPERS member. For example, they could be an optional member or a previous CalPERS member, and the statement about hours is not sufficient to determine whether the employee is a CalPERS member. Second, assuming that the District doesn’t need to file for disability retirement, they still need to separate in an appropriate manner (e.g., hold a Skelly). Finally, as a classified employee, the employee will still need to be placed on the 39-month reemployment list.

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

September September 2026 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 – Fresno 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