Labor & Employment Law  -  Los Angeles | Orange County | Silicon Valley

Accomplishments

Public Sector Employment Litigation

  1. County of Riverside v. California Public Employment Relations Board – In a matter of statewide concern, on September 13, 2013, our firm successfully secured a Writ of Mandate declaring that PERB erroneously interpreted AB 646, the mandatory post-impasse fact finding statutes. (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1305661.) We are currently defending that judgment up to the California Supreme Court.
  2. SEIU, Local 721 v. County of Riverside (2014) – In another case of state-wide interest for all public sector labor negotiations: after collective bargaining to impasse for a new MOU in 2009, our firm was lead counsel in the subsequent PERB charge which culminated in PERB’s 2014 ruling establishing the current standards for impasse in public sector collective bargaining. (PERB Charge LA-CE-577-M, Decision 2360-M.)
  3. Mills & Clardie (RSA) v. Riverside Sheriff’s Department (2014) – In a third case of state-wide interest to all public sector employers: after meeting and conferring with the Sheriff’s Association over reinstatement standards/scope of background investigation for a terminated deputy ordered reinstated, our firm obtained the significant court ruling that the County had the right to conduct full pre-employment background-type investigations on sworn personnel who are terminated and ordered reinstated, or any time there is a break in service.  (Riverside County Superior Court Case Nos. RIC 1401786, 1402250.)
  4. Hiraoka v. County of Riverside (2014) – In this hotly contested case, our firm prevailed on summary judgment, fully vindicating the County’s right to involuntarily disability retire a sheriff’s deputy, and dismissing the deputy’s claims of disability discrimination, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to reasonably accommodate.  (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 513890.)
  5. Robert Chavez v. City of Los Angeles – Mr. Zappia first-chaired the widely-publicized 2010 Los Angeles jury trial and secured a full defense verdict in the City’s favor against former police officer Chavez’s claims of employment retaliation, discrimination and harassment for filing complaints against the LAPD. (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 311284)
  6. Mory v. City of Chula Vista – In January 2012, our firm prevailed against a police officer/public employee’s claims of wrongful termination, retaliation and procedural due process violations, when the court denied the employee’s lawsuit seeking reinstatement.  The court ruled the employee was legitimately and justifiably terminated for conduct unbecoming an officer (theft of her former fiancée’s engagement ring), and interfering with a personnel investigation. (San Diego Superior Court No., 37-2009-00079219-CU-WT-SC.)
  7. City of Upland v. Davisson – In 2011, ZLF prevailed in the City’s declaratory relief action to resolve the current issue of state-wide concern about the permissible scope and procedures for disciplinary hearings in the recently enacted and amended Firefighter Bill of Rights Act. (San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVRS 1100894)
  8. Candle Edmondson McDonald v. County of Riverside – In December 2013, in a superior court bench trial, our firm achieved a complete defense verdict against all of a former Correctional Deputy’s claims including: disability discrimination; failure to engage in the interactive process; failure to accommodate; and retaliation.       (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 10000816.)
  9. Hamblin, Ullerich and Salmeron v. City of Glendale – In May 2011, ZLF successfully defended against former officers’ action for injunction to rescind terminations from employment for alleged POBR due process violations. The Court denied the employees’ motion for a temporary restraining order to stop the termination process, and the case was dismissed.  (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC 461668)
  10. Robert Chavez v. City of Los Angeles – Prior to prevailing at jury trial, in 2008 and 2010 Mr. Zappia secured several significant court rulings in the City’s favor, when the state superior court twice denied former police officer Chavez’s writ petitions seeking rescission of his termination from employment for alleged due Peace Officer Bill of Rights (“POBR”) due process violations. (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BS 126224.)
  11. Duffy v. City of Desert Hot Springs – In 2008, after first-chairing a federal jury trial, Mr. Zappia obtained a full defense verdict on a former police officer’s claim that he was terminated in retaliation for union activity. (USDC, Central District of California, Case No. EDCV 06-385-SGL (OPx))
  12. William Goldstein v. County of Riverside – In October 2013, our firm achieved a complete defense verdict against all of a former equipment operator’s claims, including: discrimination; failure to accommodate; failure to engage in the interactive process; failure to prevent discrimination; and retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claims and complaints against his supervisor. (Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC 10004676.)
  13. Deanna Mory v. City of Chula Vista – 2011 superior court judgment in the City’s favor against former police officer’s writ petition seeking reinstatement and back pay, alleging that her termination was unwarranted, and alleging numerous POBR violations. (San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2009-0007-9219-CU-WT-SC)
  14. Confidential Personnel Hearing – In January 2012, our firm prevailed for our public entity/police department client when a civil service commission sustained the termination of a police officer for numerous acts of neglect of duty, including failing to warn other officers of a nearby fleeing suspect, interfering with a DA prosecution because of a personal interest in the female suspect, and soliciting prostitutes.
  15. Riverside Sheriffs’ Association (Topping) v. County of Riverside, et al. – In June 2012, our firm prevailed on a writ of mandate filed by an employee union alleging that the County had violated the applicable collective bargaining agreement and the MMBA by failing to meet and confer over changes to an overnight take-home policy relating to County vehicles. The court affirmed the County’s right to unilaterally change its take-home vehicle policy, and expressly held that it need not reinstate the privilege for district attorney investigators. (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1119658.)
  16. Deanna Mory v. City of Chula Vista – (1) In 2010 the Zappia Law Firm won a motion for summary judgment against a former police officer’s FLSA/overtime claim for donning and doffing police uniform before and after work shifts.  (2) In 2009, the Zappia Law Firm won a motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff’s claims for retaliation, discrimination, harassment and civil rights violations. (3) In 2009, ZLF won an anti-SLAPP motion and obtained a $78,000 fee award for our client, the City of Chula Vista. (USDC, Southern District Case No. 07-CV-0462 JLS (WVG))
  17. SEIU, Local 721, et al. v. County of Riverside, et al. – On February 14, 2012, our firm achieved a significant federal court/First Amendment case victory for our clients when the district court granted our two motions for summary judgment.  Plaintiffs (large union and its member), alleged agency-wide retaliation, discrimination and First Amendment violations for engaging in aggressive union activity.  In addition to entering judgment in favor of all eight of our clients, the court found that Plaintiffs had fabricated allegations, and were suing over “mere petty slights” which did not rise to the level of discrimination or retaliation.  (USDC, Central District Case No. EDCV10- 01846 VAP (DTBx).)
  18. Confidential Personnel Hearing – In November 2011 our firm obtained a victory for our public entity/police department client when a personnel commission affirmed the terminations of two police officers for driving to Las Vegas on duty in a City vehicle, and imposed a 90-day suspension and salary reduction on the third officer involved.  The employees have appealed to superior court alleging due process violations under the POBR.  (Hamblin, et al. v. City of Glendale, et al., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case Nos. BS 135361 and BS 135390.)
  19. Riverside Sheriffs’ Association v. County of Riverside – In 2013 ZLF secured a PERB ruling in the County’s favor finding that the County lawfully adopted a policy concerning the issuance of concealed weapons permits to retired Probation Officers. The County did not have a duty to meet and confer with the Association because the permits were not a mandatory subject of bargaining. (PERB Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-680-M)
  20. Riverside Sheriffs’ Association (Cline) v. County of Riverside, et al. – In October 2011 our firm obtained a defense judgment against Plaintiff/labor union’s allegations that our client unlawfully unilaterally imposed an overly-strict policy for permits to carry loaded and concealed weapons, and sought an order requiring our client to grant retirees’ applications to carry loaded and concealed weapons.  The court ruled our client had the right to unilaterally create the policy and apply its discretion in deciding whether or not to grant such requests.  (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1101283.)
  21. LIUNA, Local 777 (Devin Whitney) v. County of Riverside – 2011 PERB ruling in the County’s favor that the County did not commit an unfair practice and did not engage in retaliation in terminating the employment of a public defender investigator who had requested union representation in a meeting with his supervisor. (PERB Unfair Practice Charge No. LA-CE-541-M, PERB Decision No. 2184-M)

Labor and Employment Appeals

  1. Fauth v. County of Riverside (2015) – In the final conclusion to the Court of Appeal’s published decision in Fauth I [RSA v. County of Riverside (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1410], which had ordered the County to provide both a disability retirement hearing and a termination appeal to an unfit peace offer whose disability disqualified her from carrying a weapon, after eight years of intense litigation and two formal appeals, ZLF successfully defensed the County’s termination of the officer.  On this second appeal, the Court ruled that the County properly terminated plaintiff for failing to meet the minimum requirements of her job as a peace officer, and fully and finally affirmed this termination despite the procedural complications caused by her involuntary disability retirement.
  2. Rodgers v. County of Riverside (2015) – In another case that lasted eight vigorously litigated years, ZLF obtained a reversal of the trial court’s Writ ruling that had required the County to re-evaluate the termination of an incompetent and dishonest probation officer based on her performance alone (disregarding dishonesty and criminal conviction, which had been excluded under the evidentiary provisions of the Peace Officers Bill of Rights). ZLF succeeded in reversing this Writ on appeal, and reinstating the officer’s termination with no backpay.  In addition, ZLF’s client was awarded costs on appeal.
  3. Rivera v. County of Riverside – On August 1, 2014, ZLF received a final appellate court ruling completely reversing the $100,000 award of attorney’s fees to plaintiff Shirley Rivera.  This was a great result to achieve, as attorney fees are practically automatic to prevailing employment plaintiffs under the California Civil Code and federal law.  Nonetheless, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Plaintiff Rivera, agreeing with ZLF that Rivera failed to confer “a significant benefit on the general public,” and that the County bore no municipal liability for Rivera’s alleged wrongs.  (Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC 494960, Court of Appeal Case No. E055956)
  4. Ingham v. Club One, Inc. (2013) – ZLF obtained an immediate emergency stay of all lower court proceedings to allow the California Court of Appeal to hear our Petition for Writ of Mandate to reverse the Superior Court’s grant of summary adjudication against our client. Courts of Appeal grant emergency stays in 1 out of 1,000 requests.
  5. Riverside Sheriffs’ Association v. County of Riverside (2013) – In a highly contentious case, ZLF prevailed in the California Court of Appeal, which affirmed that the County has the right to use non-unionized temporary employees as much as necessary without violating its Memorandum of Understating. (Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC526383)
  6. Hiraoka v. County of Riverside (2012) – ZLF prevailed on appeal, by obtaining a reversal of a superior court ruling overturning the County’s decision to reject an administrative law judge’s proposed decision to reinstate a peace officer whom the County had involuntarily disability retired. (Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division 2, E052981.)
  7. Chula Vista Police Officers Association v. City of Chula Vista (2010) – ZLF prevailed on federal appeal when the Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in the City’s favor against a terminated police officer’s claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation and civil rights violations. (USDC, Southern District, Case No. 3:06-cv-01460-JLS-BLM; Ninth Circuit Appeal No. 08-55462.)
  8. Valentin v. City of South Gate (2008) – ZLF prevailed on federal appeal when the Ninth Circuit affirmed three motions for summary judgment in the City’s favor, against terminated police officer’s allegations of retaliation, discrimination and civil rights violations. (USDC, Central District Case No. CV 04-3396 R (SHx); Ninth Circuit Appeal No. 07-56655.)
  9. Dan Carvin v. City of Los Angeles (2006) – Mr. Zappia successfully obtained Court of Appeal intervention to grant the City’s appellate writ petition and emergency stay of discovery, and then reversed the superior court’s discovery order to allow the deposition of City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo.       (Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC290533)
  10. SEIU, v. City of Santa Barbara (1997) – 57 Cal.App.4th 654 – Early in his career, Mr. Zappia obtained a published opinion from the California Court of Appeal, ruling that the City was warranted in undertaking a second election for an agency shop.