Senate Bill 1421 (“SB 1421”) went into effect on January 1, 2019. As a result, under Government Code section 832.7 as amended, certain types of peace officer personnel records became subject to disclosure pursuant to a California Public Records Act (“CPRA”) request. Shortly after the effective date of SB 1421, Kern High School District received
Governor Newsom Signs Police Use-of-Force Bill AB 392
On Monday morning, August 19, 2019, Governor Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 392, a police use-of-force bill that redefines the circumstances under which the use of lethal force by a peace officer is considered justifiable. The law is intended to encourage law enforcement to increasingly rely on alternative methods such as less-lethal force or de-escalation
Court of Appeal Issues First Published Decision on Senate Bill 1421 and Retroactivity
This Special Bulletin was authored by J. Scott Tiedemann & Lars T. Reed
Over the past three months, since California Senate Bill 1421 went into effect on January 1, 2019, numerous public agencies across California have been involved in litigation over whether the new law applies to records created before 2019. After conflicting decisions from
Light Duty Assignments And The Disabled Employee
Courts have held that generally employees are not obligated to make a temporary assignment permanent where an employee requests reasonable accommodation because of a disability. This falls in line with the idea that employers are not expected to create as a form of accommodation new positions that did not previously exist. Recently, however, this notion
Ninth Circuit Holds That Behavioral Issues Warrant Fitness For Duty Examination
On how many occasions have you found yourself asking whether you can lawfully send an employee for a fitness for duty evaluation? At one time or another you may have been faced with an employee whose ability to perform their job is questioned. Sometimes these situations are clear: the employee is actually failing to perform his or her job duties and you have cause to believe they are not fit for duty. However, what about situations where an employee is performing the functions and duties of their job, 
but is acting out behaviorally in a way that is stressful and disruptful to a department or unit? Can that employee be sent for a fitness for duty evaluation even though they are competently performing their actual job duties?
In Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 F. 3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2010), Brownfield, a Yakima police officer, was performing his duties as a peace officer, but his communications with his supervisors were overly emotional on about five occasions. For example, he used an expletive and he walked out of a meeting with two of his supervisors. On another occasion, Brownfield swore at a supervisor and told him to leave the room when he was talking with another officer. As a result of this behavior, the City ordered Brownfield to undergo a fitness for duty examination. The doctor diagnosed Brownfield with a permanent mood disorder and concluded that he was unfit for police duty. The City terminated Brownfield on the ground that he was unfit for duty.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Holds That Behavioral Issues Warrant Fitness For Duty Examination