4.10 score from hupso.pl for:
calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com



HTML Content


Titlecalifornia public agency labor & employment blog | liebert cassidy whitmore

Length: 79, Words: 10
Description this law blog provides news & commentary on developments in public agency management, labor relations and employment law in california. topics include workplace policies, disability and discrimination in the workplace.

Length: 222, Words: 30
Keywords pusty
Robots noodp
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 9318
Text/HTML 40.99 %
Headings H1 11
H2 2
H3 13
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
california public agency labor & employment blog
discontinuation of a long-standing practice of accommodating disabled employees through light-duty may be a violation of feha
am i a municipal corporation? maybe. does it matter? yes!
tips from the table: dealing with elected officials
writings concerning public business are public records – even if they are sent, received, or stored on an employee’s personal email, phone, or computer
spring cleaning – have you reviewed your personnel rules lately?
political discussions in the workplace
are you ready for upcoming negotiations? – know your contract costs
are they ever coming back? – taking a proactive approach to leave management and employees who are on long-term leaves of absence
no bones about it: no compensation for canine handlers training to be canine instructors
for better or worse: ten years of the firefighters procedural bill of rights act
H2
useful information for navigating legal challenges
check which policies you may be missing
H3
about this blog
stay connected
subscribe to this blog by email
topics
archives
david urban
melanie chaney
lisa s. charbonneau
paul d. knothe
erin kunze
megan lewis
alysha stein-manes
stefanie k. vaudreuil
H4
H5
H6
strong
this post was authored by jennifer rosner
yes
no
multiple interpretations of “municipal corporation”
new test for “municipal corporation” under labor code 220(b)
not
where does this leave us?
this post was authored by alison r. kalinski
how does this decision affect your agency?
compliance with new laws and regulations
minimum wage
minding the wage-gap
harassment training for elected officials
cover the essential areas
delete obsolete or confusing rules
direct & indirect costs – what are they?
costing methodology 
is costing really helpful?
learn more
costing labor contracts | 
register today (select pre-conference only)
this post was authored by michael youril.
we are here to help!
this post was authored by alison r. kalinski
background
decision process
results
application to non-federal employers in california
training time need not be compensated if all of the following four criteria are met
history of the fbor
comparing the incomparable
conclusion
b
this post was authored by jennifer rosner
yes
no
multiple interpretations of “municipal corporation”
new test for “municipal corporation” under labor code 220(b)
not
where does this leave us?
this post was authored by alison r. kalinski
how does this decision affect your agency?
compliance with new laws and regulations
minimum wage
minding the wage-gap
harassment training for elected officials
cover the essential areas
delete obsolete or confusing rules
direct & indirect costs – what are they?
costing methodology 
is costing really helpful?
learn more
costing labor contracts | 
register today (select pre-conference only)
this post was authored by michael youril.
we are here to help!
this post was authored by alison r. kalinski
background
decision process
results
application to non-federal employers in california
training time need not be compensated if all of the following four criteria are met
history of the fbor
comparing the incomparable
conclusion
i
this post was authored by jennifer rosner
yes
no
multiple interpretations of “municipal corporation”
new test for “municipal corporation” under labor code 220(b)
not
where does this leave us?
this post was authored by alison r. kalinski
how does this decision affect your agency?
compliance with new laws and regulations
minimum wage
minding the wage-gap
harassment training for elected officials
cover the essential areas
delete obsolete or confusing rules
direct & indirect costs – what are they?
costing methodology 
is costing really helpful?
learn more
costing labor contracts | 
register today (select pre-conference only)
this post was authored by michael youril.
we are here to help!
this post was authored by alison r. kalinski
background
decision process
results
application to non-federal employers in california
training time need not be compensated if all of the following four criteria are met
history of the fbor
comparing the incomparable
conclusion
em this post was authored by jennifer rosner
yes
no
multiple interpretations of “municipal corporation”
new test for “municipal corporation” under labor code 220(b)
not
where does this leave us?
this post was authored by alison r. kalinski
how does this decision affect your agency?
compliance with new laws and regulations
minimum wage
minding the wage-gap
harassment training for elected officials
cover the essential areas
delete obsolete or confusing rules
direct & indirect costs – what are they?
costing methodology 
is costing really helpful?
learn more
costing labor contracts | 
register today (select pre-conference only)
this post was authored by michael youril.
we are here to help!
this post was authored by alison r. kalinski
background
decision process
results
application to non-federal employers in california
training time need not be compensated if all of the following four criteria are met
history of the fbor
comparing the incomparable
conclusion
Bolds strong 32
b 32
i 32
em 32
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title exist
twitter:description exist
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 19
Pliki CSS 5
Pliki javascript 14
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 239
Linki wewnętrzne 12
Linki zewnętrzne 227
Linki bez atrybutu Title 219
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

home /
tips from the table /news?related=tips-from-the-table
labor relations and collective bargaining /expertise/labor-relations-and-collective-bargaining
more /services/
more... /author/durban/
more... /author/mchaney/
more... /author/lcharbonneau/
more... /author/pknothe/
more... /author/ekunze/
more... /author/mlewis/
more... /author/asteinmane/
more... /author/svaudreuil/

Linki zewnętrzne

california public agency labor & employment blog http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/
about http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/about/
services http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/services/
resources http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/resources/
contact http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/contact/
published by liebert cassidy whitmore http://www.lcwlegal.com/
discontinuation of a long-standing practice of accommodating disabled employees through light-duty may be a violation of feha http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/discontinuation-of-a-long-standing-practice-of-accommodating-disabled-employees-through-light-duty-may-be-a-violation-of-feha/
public safety issues, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/public-safety-issues/
retirement http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/retirement/
jennifer rosner https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/jennifer-rosner
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/discontinuation-of-a-long-standing-practice-of-accommodating-disabled-employees-through-light-duty-may-be-a-violation-of-feha/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/discontinuation-of-a-long-standing-practice-of-accommodating-disabled-employees-through-light-duty-may-be-a-violation-of-feha/#respond
"reasonable accommodation", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/reasonable-accommodation/
atkins v. city of los angeles, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/atkins-v-city-of-los-angeles/
feha, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/feha/
light-duty, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/light-duty/
police recruits, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/police-recruits/
post http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/post/
am i a municipal corporation? maybe. does it matter? yes! http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/public-sector-2/am-i-a-municipal-corporation-maybe-does-it-matter-yes/
lisa s. charbonneau https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/lisa-charbonneau
public sector http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/public-sector-2/
merced irrigation district v. superior court https://www.lcwlegal.com/uploaded/files/merced%20irrigation%20dist.pdf
johnson v. arvin-edison water storage district http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1389313.html
gateway community charters v. heidi speiss https://www.lcwlegal.com/uploaded/files/gateway%20community%20charters%20v.%20spiess.pdf
division of labor law enforcement v. el camino hosp. dist. http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/8/supp30.html
kistler v. redwoods ccd http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/15/1326.html
johnson http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1389313.html
gateway https://www.lcwlegal.com/uploaded/files/gateway%20community%20charters%20v.%20spiess.pdf
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/public-sector-2/am-i-a-municipal-corporation-maybe-does-it-matter-yes/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/public-sector-2/am-i-a-municipal-corporation-maybe-does-it-matter-yes/#respond
"california labor code", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/california-labor-code/
municipal corporation, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/municipal-corporation/
nonprofit, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/nonprofit/
public benefit corporations http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/public-benefit-corporations/
tips from the table: dealing with elected officials http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/labor-relations/tips-from-the-table-dealing-with-elected-officials/
labor relations, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/labor-relations/
negotiations http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/negotiations/
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/labor-relations/tips-from-the-table-dealing-with-elected-officials/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/labor-relations/tips-from-the-table-dealing-with-elected-officials/#respond
elected officials, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/elected-officials/
governing board, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/governing-board/
negotiations, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/negotiations/
preparation, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/preparation/
unions http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/unions/
writings concerning public business are public records – even if they are sent, received, or stored on an employee’s personal email, phone, or computer http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/privacy/writings-concerning-public-business-are-public-records-even-if-they-are-sent-received-or-stored-on-an-employees-personal-email-phone-or-computer/
guest author http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/author/lcwguestauthor/
privacy http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/privacy/
alison r. kalinski https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/alison-kalinski
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/privacy/writings-concerning-public-business-are-public-records-even-if-they-are-sent-received-or-stored-on-an-employees-personal-email-phone-or-computer/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/privacy/writings-concerning-public-business-are-public-records-even-if-they-are-sent-received-or-stored-on-an-employees-personal-email-phone-or-computer/#respond
"california supreme court", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/california-supreme-court/
"san jose", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/san-jose/
communication, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/communication/
pra, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/pra/
public records http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/public-records/
spring cleaning – have you reviewed your personnel rules lately? http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/workplace-policies/spring-cleaning-have-you-reviewed-your-personnel-rules-lately/
melanie chaney https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/melanie-chaney
workplace policies http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/workplace-policies/
check which policies you may be missing http://liebertlibrary.com/timeline/
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/workplace-policies/spring-cleaning-have-you-reviewed-your-personnel-rules-lately/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/workplace-policies/spring-cleaning-have-you-reviewed-your-personnel-rules-lately/#respond
"minimum wage", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/minimum-wage/
discrimination, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/discrimination/
harassment, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/harassment/
leaves, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/leaves/
personnel policy, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/personnel-policy/
review, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/review/
wage-gap http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/wage-gap/
political discussions in the workplace http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/political-discussions-in-the-workplace/
jeffrey c. freedman http://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/jeffrey-freedman
employment, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/employment/
workplace policies http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/workplace-policies/
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/political-discussions-in-the-workplace/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/employment/political-discussions-in-the-workplace/#respond
"government code", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/government-code/
discrimination, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/discrimination/
election, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/election/
first amendment, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/first-amendment/
harassment, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/harassment/
politics, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/politics/
workplace http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/workplace/
are you ready for upcoming negotiations? – know your contract costs http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/labor-relations/are-you-ready-for-upcoming-negotiations-know-your-contract-costs/
kristi recchia https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/kristi-recchia
labor relations, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/labor-relations/
negotiations http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/negotiations/
register today (select pre-conference only) http://www.lcwlegal.com/events-and-training/events-and-training-calendar/2017-lcw-annual-conference?task=registration
lcw labor relations certification program© http://www.lcwlegal.com/lrcp
learn more > https://www.lcwlegal.com/lrcp
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/labor-relations/are-you-ready-for-upcoming-negotiations-know-your-contract-costs/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/labor-relations/are-you-ready-for-upcoming-negotiations-know-your-contract-costs/#respond
"labor agreements", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/labor-agreements/
costing, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/costing/
mou, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/mou/
negotiation process http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/negotiation-process/
are they ever coming back? – taking a proactive approach to leave management and employees who are on long-term leaves of absence http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/are-they-ever-coming-back-taking-a-proactive-approach-to-leave-management-and-employees-who-are-on-long-term-leaves-of-absence/
retirement http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/retirement/
michael youril https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/michael-youril
leave of absence review program http://www.lcwlegal.com/leaves-management
www.lcwlegal.com/leaves-management http://www.lcwlegal.com/leaves-management
proactive leave management and addressing long-term leaves of absence https://www.lcwlegal.com/events-and-training/events-and-training-calendar/proactive-leave-management-and-addressing-long-term-leaves-of-absence
our website https://www.lcwlegal.com/events-and-training/events-and-training-calendar/proactive-leave-management-and-addressing-long-term-leaves-of-absence
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/are-they-ever-coming-back-taking-a-proactive-approach-to-leave-management-and-employees-who-are-on-long-term-leaves-of-absence/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/retirement/are-they-ever-coming-back-taking-a-proactive-approach-to-leave-management-and-employees-who-are-on-long-term-leaves-of-absence/#respond
"leave of absence", http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/leave-of-absence/
disability, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/disability/
long-term leave, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/long-term-leave/
serial note, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/serial-note/
tags: leaves http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/tags-leaves/
no bones about it: no compensation for canine handlers training to be canine instructors http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/no-bones-about-it-no-compensation-for-canine-handlers-training-to-be-canine-instructors/
wage and hour http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/wage-and-hour-2/
alison r. kalinski https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/alison-kalinski
almanza v. united states http://www.leagle.com/decision/in%20fdco%2020160727c89/almanza%20v.%20u.s.
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/no-bones-about-it-no-compensation-for-canine-handlers-training-to-be-canine-instructors/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-hour-2/no-bones-about-it-no-compensation-for-canine-handlers-training-to-be-canine-instructors/#respond
almanza v. united states, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/almanza-v-united-states/
border protection officers, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/border-protection-officers/
cannine handlers, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/cannine-handlers/
certification, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/certification/
compensation, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/compensation/
instructors, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/instructors/
training, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/training/
wage & hour http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/wage-hour/
for better or worse: ten years of the firefighters procedural bill of rights act http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/public-safety-issues/for-better-or-worse-ten-years-of-the-firefighters-procedural-bill-of-rights-act/
stefanie k. vaudreuil https://www.lcwlegal.com/our-people/stefanie-vaudreuil
public safety issues http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/public-safety-issues/
tweet http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
like http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
email http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
linkedin http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20
google plus https://plus.google.com/share?url=http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/public-safety-issues/for-better-or-worse-ten-years-of-the-firefighters-procedural-bill-of-rights-act/
comment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/public-safety-issues/for-better-or-worse-ten-years-of-the-firefighters-procedural-bill-of-rights-act/#respond
discipline, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/discipline/
due process, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/due-process/
fbor, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/fbor/
fire fighters, http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/fire-fighters/
rights http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/tag/rights/
older posts http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/page/2/
subscribe to this blog via rss http://feeds.lexblog.com/californiapublicagencylaborandemploymentblog
view our linkedin profile http://www.linkedin.com/company/liebert-cassidy-whitmore
follow us on twitter http://www.twitter.com/lcwlegal
appeals http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/appeals/
bankruptcy http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/bankruptcy/
brown act http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/brown-act-2/
cfra http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/cfra/
class/collective action http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/classcollective-action/
conferences http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/conferences/
constitutional rights http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/constitutional-rights/
disability http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/disability/
discrimination http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/discrimination/
e-discovery http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/e-discovery/
education http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/education/
employment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/employment/
ethics http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/ethics/
first amendment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/first-amendment/
flsa http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/flsa/
fmla http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/fmla/
harassment http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/harassment/
healthcare http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/healthcare/
hiring http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/hiring/
labor relations http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/labor-relations/
layoffs http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/layoffs/
lcw seminars http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/lcw-seminars/
legislation http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/legislation/
lessons learned http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/lessons-learned/
liebert cassidy whitmore http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/liebert-cassidy-whitmore-2/
litigation http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/litigation/
military discrimination http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/military-discrimination/
military leave http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/military-leave/
negotiations http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/negotiations/
pension http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/pension/
perb http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/perb/
personnel issues http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/personnel-issues/
privacy http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/privacy/
public safety issues http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/public-safety-issues/
public sector http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/public-sector-2/
retaliation http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/retaliation/
retirement http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/retirement/
safety http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/safety/
social media http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/social-media/
tips from the table http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/tips-from-the-table/
travel time http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/travel-time/
uncategorized http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/uncategorized/
userra http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/userra/
wage and hour http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/wage-and-hour-2/
workplace policies http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/category/workplace-policies/
@lcwlegal http://www.twitter.com/lcwlegal
follow lcwlegal on twitter >> http://www.twitter.com/lcwlegal
liebert cassidy whitmore http://www.lcwlegal.com/
privacy policy http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/privacy-policy/
terms of use http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/terms-of-use/
strategy, design, marketing & support by lexblog http://lexblog.com

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 19
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 0
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 19
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/themes/b0001106-calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog/images/print-header.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2012/08/police-cars.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/03/work-blocks-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2013/04/couthouse-flag-191x300.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/02/woman-in-front-of-computer-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/02/white-house-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/02/calculating-data-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/02/lr-certification-program-logo-300x103.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/02/vacation-request-2-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/02/k-9-officer-300x189.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/2017/02/fire-jacket-300x189.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.wp.lexblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/3012.thumbnail.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.wp.lexblogs.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/3051.thumbnail.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.ignite.lexblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/8713.thumbnail.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.ignite.lexblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/8342.thumbnail.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.ignite.lexblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/7234-1484789577.thumbnail.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.ignite.lexblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/10037-1484682193.thumbnail.jpg
http://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.ignite.lexblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/293/userphoto/6860-1484789681.thumbnail.jpg
http://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wp-content/themes/lxb-parent-theme-1.2/images/lexblog.png

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

empty

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

california public agency labor & employment blog useful information for navigating legal challenges home about services resources contact published by liebert cassidy whitmore discontinuation of a long-standing practice of accommodating disabled employees through light-duty may be a violation of feha by vpower and retirement blogger on march 28, 2017 posted in public safety issues, retirement this post was authored by jennifer rosner in a recent decision by a california court of appeal, a court held that it was not unreasonable for the city of los angeles to assign temporarily injured recruit officers to light-duty administrative assignments in light of the city’s past policy and practice of doing so. plaintiffs were recruit police officers and entered the police academy shortly after they were hired.  during the academy training, each of the three officers suffered injury.   the city had a policy whereby if a recruit became injured while at the academy,  the city placed him or her in the recycle program, which provided recruits with light-duty administrative jobs until their injuries were healed and they could return (or recycle back) to the academy.  while in the recycle program, recruits received full compensation and benefits.  in accordance with this policy, plaintiffs were assigned to light-duty administrative positions. the city’s recycle program (of allowing police recruits to remain in the recycle program indefinitely) conflicted with penal code section 832.4 and regulations issued by the california commission on peace officer standards and training (post), which require recruits to complete their training and the 12-month probationary period within two years.  thus, in an attempt to ensure compliance with this rule, the department revised its recruit officer recycle policy to provide “any recruit officer with a work restriction(s) or any other condition that precludes them from fully participating in all aspects of the basic course, which has or will extend beyond six calendar months, is no longer eligible to remain in the post basic course.” when the city required the plaintiffs to return or resign from their employment because they were not able to return after six months of injury, they filed this lawsuit alleging, in relevant part, disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under the fair employment and housing act (feha).  as to their claim for disability discrimination, feha makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of the employee’s disability.  however, feha specifically limits the reach of feha by “excluding from coverage those persons who are not qualified, even with reasonable accommodation, to perform essential job duties.”  here, the court found that plaintiffs were unable to show that they were “qualified individuals” because they could not perform the essential functions of a police recruit even with reasonable accommodation.  the court stated that in determining whether the plaintiffs were “qualified individuals,” the city was not required to eliminate an essential function of the position of police recruit, such as modifying the academy training program or requirement, waiving the post certification requirement, or eliminating from a recruit officer’s job duties the ability to make forcible arrests and control suspect. however, the court rejected the city’s argument that the plaintiffs, as trainees, were not entitled to reassignment to the recycle program as a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law and as such, the city was liable for failure to reasonably accommodate.  the court stated that feha protects “probationary” employees, including by requiring reassignment, where such reassignment is reasonable.  the court found that reassignment to the recycle program, until the plaintiffs healed or became permanently disabled, was not unreasonable under the facts of this case, especially where the department had a long-standing practice of allowing injured recruits to remain in the recycle program indefinitely until they healed and could return to the academy or until their disabilities became permanent. while the court did not question the legitimate reasons the city had for discontinuing the recycle program, it held that “having created the recycle program and allow[ing] past recruit officers to stay in the program until they recovered or became permanently disabled, the city could not deny the same accommodation to the plaintiffs, who entered the program before the city’s change in policy.” while feha does not require employers to temporarily accommodate injured employees indefinitely or to convert a temporary position into a permanent one, to the extent an employer’s policies and practices indicate such accommodations are reasonable, an employer may violate feha by not making those accommodations available to all employees.  thus, in determining reasonable accommodation, employers should review their policies and past practices to make sure that they are consistent in their application (or discontinuation) of any light-duty assignments that they may make. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "reasonable accommodation", atkins v. city of los angeles, feha, light-duty, police recruits, post am i a municipal corporation? maybe. does it matter? yes! by lisa s. charbonneau on march 21, 2017 posted in public sector california employers are subject to numerous state and federal statutes that regulate employee compensation and hours of work. whether california labor code provisions, such as those that guarantee penalties for the late payment of final wages, apply to a specific employer must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. do they? for most private school employers, the answer is yes. for county and charter city employers, the answer is generally no. indeed, labor code section 220(b) states that numerous key sections of the labor code do not apply to “employees directly employed by any county, incorporated city, or town or other municipal corporation.” (cal. lab. code section 220(b).) for public agencies that are not counties, cities, or towns, i.e. school districts, special districts, and non-profit corporations performing public functions, the answer depends on whether the entity falls under the definition of “municipal corporation.” multiple interpretations of “municipal corporation” the term “municipal corporation” is used throughout various california statutory schemes and has been interpreted differently by courts depending on the legislative intent behind the statute that references the term. for example, in a recent case, merced irrigation district v. superior court, the california fifth appellate district court of appeal, in a matter of first impression, held that an irrigation district is not a municipal corporation as the term is used in section 10251 of the california public utilities code, which authorizes municipal corporations to recover damages from persons who harm the facilities or equipment of a municipal corporation. however, irrigation districts have been found municipal corporations under other statutes, such as the california irrigation district act.  and while no court has explicitly held that an irrigation district is a municipal corporation under labor code 220(b), in johnson v. arvin-edison water storage district (2009), the fifth district court of appeal held that water storage districts are municipal corporations for purposes of labor code 220(b). to complicate matters further, the court arrived at its conclusion by equating water storage districts with irrigation districts and water districts, writing that their public function is the same. new test for “municipal corporation” under labor code 220(b) recently, the third appellate district, in gateway community charters v. heidi speiss (2017), took up the meaning of “municipal corporation” for purposes of labor code 220(b) in the context of charter schools – specifically, a private nonprofit benefit corporation that operates public charter schools.  in analyzing whether the school owed a former teacher waiting time penalties pursuant to labor code section 203, the court provided a list of characteristics common to counties, incorporated cities, and towns that the entity must possess to characterize it as a municipal corporation per section 220(b): does the entity perform an essential government function for a public purpose? is the entity governed by an elected board of directors? does the entity have regulatory or police powers? does the entity have the power to impose taxes, assessments, or tolls? is the entity subject to open meeting laws and public disclosure of records? can the entity take property through eminent domain? applying these factors to the employer-defendant in the gateway case, the court held that although providing public education through its charter schools was an essential governmental function, and even though the schools were subject to the brown act and the cpra, the private nonprofit benefit corporation was not a municipal corporation under labor code 220(b). according to the court, “without the publicly elected board, the geographical jurisdictional boundary, and the power to forcefully raise funds or acquire property from people within its geographical jurisdiction” the corporation “bears little resemblance to a ‘county, incorporated city, or town’” or to the districts deemed as municipal corporations. where does this leave us? courts have held that public school districts, public hospitals, and water storage districts are municipal corporations under labor code 220(b), which means individuals directly employed by these entities are not entitled to waiting time penalties under labor code section 203, among other labor code protections set forth in sections 200 – 211 and 215 – 219.  (see division of labor law enforcement v. el camino hosp. dist. (1970); see also kistler v. redwoods ccd (1993); see also johnson.) on the other hand, an appellate court has held that a private nonprofit benefit corporation that operates public charter schools is not a municipal corporation under labor code 220(b) and thus its employee are entitled to waiting time penalties. (gateway) and while no courts have specifically opined as to whether irrigation districts, parks districts, sanitation districts, transit districts or other quasi-public municipal entities are municipal corporations under labor code 220(b), such districts are likely to be found municipal corporations as long as they are subject to the brown act and the cpra, and have a publicly elected board, a geographical jurisdiction, and the power forcefully to raise funds or acquire property from those within its geographical jurisdiction. however, public benefit corporations that have considered themselves municipal corporations due to their public purpose, i.e. to provide an essential government function, should not rely on that characteristic alone to define themselves as municipal corporations. instead, such entities must review other factors to evaluate whether they are sufficiently similar to counties, cities, and towns to satisfy the requirements of labor code 220(b). if not, they will be subject to the labor code. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "california labor code", municipal corporation, nonprofit, public benefit corporations tips from the table: dealing with elected officials by vpower and tips from the table on march 15, 2017 posted in labor relations, negotiations we are excited to continue our video series – tips from the table. in these monthly videos, members of lcw’s labor relations and collective bargaining practice group will provide various tips that can be implemented at your bargaining tables. we hope that you will find these clips informative and helpful in your negotiations. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: elected officials, governing board, negotiations, preparation, unions writings concerning public business are public records – even if they are sent, received, or stored on an employee’s personal email, phone, or computer by guest author on march 2, 2017 posted in privacy this post was authored by alison r. kalinski the california supreme court today reversed the court of appeal in city of san jose v. superior court (smith), and held that communications by a city employee concerning public business on a personal account, such as email, phone or computer, may be subject to disclosure under the california public records act (“pra”). in 2009, ted smith presented the city of san jose with a pra request for communications regarding a development project for the city.  specifically, smith sought voicemails, emails or texts sent or received on personal electronic devices used by the mayor, city council members and staff.  the city agreed to produce records stored on its servers and those transmitted to or from private devices using city accounts, but did not produce communications from the individuals’ personal electronic accounts that were stored solely on personal devices or servers. smith filed a successful action for declaratory relief in superior court which found that the city was required to produce the requested communications notwithstanding the fact that the communications were not directly accessible by the city since they had been sent from and received on private devices using private accounts.  the court of appeal reversed on the basis that the requested electronic communications were not public records because they were not “prepared, owned, used, or retained” by the public agencies that are the subject of the act. the supreme court unanimously reversed the court of appeal, holding that a city employee’s communications about public business are not excluded from the pra just because they are sent, received, or stored in a personal account.  the court emphasized the pra’s purpose is to provide public access to “the conduct of the people’s business” and the california constitution’s mandate to broadly construe statutes providing for access to public information.  in reaching its decision, the court focused on the definition of a “public record” under the pra and explained that “a public record has four aspects. . . (1) a writing, (2) with content relating to the conduct of the public’s business, which is (3) prepared by, or (4) owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency.”  writings include electronic communications and “must relate in some substantive way to the conduct of the public’s business” to meet this test.  the supreme court disagreed with the court of appeal on the meaning of “prepared by any state or local agency.”  state and local agencies can only act through their individual officials and employees, so when individual employees are conducting public business, they are acting on the agency’s behalf.  thus, writings relating to the public’s business prepared by agency employees are public records, regardless of whether the employee prepared the record on a personal or agency account.  the court explained that the location where the writing is stored is irrelevant; a writing does not lose its status as a public record merely because it is stored in an employee’s personal account. the supreme court also addressed policy concerns implicated by its decision.  because there is no law requiring public employees to only use government accounts for public business, government employees could simply hide any communications from disclosure by using their personal account.  this would be incompatible with the purposes of the pra.  moreover, the court explained privacy concerns would still be considered because the pra exempts many documents from disclosure and even has a catchall exemption to balance privacy concerns.  the focus in determining whether a communication is a public record should always be on the content of the record – not its location or the medium of the communication. how does this decision affect your agency? because public agencies will likely be concerned about how to search and obtain public records that may reside in employees’ personal accounts, the supreme court issued guidance on this issue.  since the court was not ruling on any specific search, the court’s instructions are not legal precedent, but likely will be looked to in the future by other courts and can act as a roadmap to agencies in navigating obtaining public records from employees’ personal accounts. agencies only need to conduct reasonable searches; “extraordinarily extensive or intrusive searches” are not required. agencies can develop their own internal policies for conducting searches and request and “reasonably rely on [their] employees to search their own personal files, accounts, and devices for responsive material.” the court noted employees can be trained how to search for and segregate public from private records.  in addition, agencies can satisfy their obligations under the pra when employees act in good faith and submit an affidavit with sufficient facts to show the information in their personal records is not a public record under the pra. agencies can also adopt policies requiring employees to refrain from using their personal accounts for public business, or requiring them to copy communications to their government accounts when they do so. this would minimize public records from existing solely on personal accounts. the supreme court’s guidance places the burden on public agencies to develop proper policies and procedures regarding the use of personal devices by employees and officials to conduct public business.  a failure to timely comply with the pra can result in an order to disclose records as well as an order to pay attorney’s fees.  while the safest approach to comply with the pra based on this decision would be to require all employees and officials to only use agency computers and accounts for communications about public business, that policy may not be advisable for some agencies.  in those cases, a strong policy that puts the burden on agency employees to verify they have conducted a thorough search for public records will be the agency’s best defense to pra claims.  agencies will also want to provide training to their employees on these policies and document the training. strong policies and training of employees on those pra policies will minimize the risk to public agencies of non-compliance with the pra. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "california supreme court", "san jose", communication, pra, public records spring cleaning – have you reviewed your personnel rules lately? by melanie chaney on february 28, 2017 posted in workplace policies we are settling into 2017 and winter is fading away.  as springtime approaches and we clean out our closets and desks, it is also a good time to review your agency’s personnel rules and policies and give them a thorough “spring cleaning.”   while reviewing and updating your personnel rules can be time-consuming, it is well worth the time in the long-run.  having updated personnel rules can help your agency implement current best practices and, most importantly, reduce potential liability.  so take the time to make sure your rules comply with all new employment laws and regulations, cover all essential areas in these fast-changing times, and delete any confusing or obsolete rules. compliance with new laws and regulations there are new employment laws and regulations taking effect all the time.  we have previously reported on new laws affecting california employers for 2017 including the following three examples you should consider when updating your agency’s rules. minimum wage effective january 1, 2017, the california state minimum wage increased to $10.50 per hour.  the state minimum wage will increase to $11 per hour on january 1, 2018; $12 per hour on january 1, 2019; $13 per hour on january 1, 2020; $14 per hour on january 1, 2021; and $15 per hour on january 1, 2022.  after that, the state minimum wage will continue to be adjusted annually based on the consumer price index (cpi).  are your rules and pay schedules in compliance?  do you have a plan for updating as necessary each year as the minimum wage continues to increase to $15 over the next several years and becomes adjusted annually after that? minding the wage-gap we have also reported on recent changes to labor code section 1197.5.  in 2016, california labor code section 1197.5 was amended to prohibit wage differentials based on sex.  effective january 1, 2017, section 1197.5 was amended also to prohibit wage differentials based on race or ethnicity.  this means the labor code now prohibits employers from paying an employee a wage rate less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex, or of a different race or ethnicity, for substantially similar work, when considering skill, effort, and responsibility, which is performed under similar working conditions.  additionally, under this new law, prior salary alone cannot justify a disparity in compensation based on gender, race, or ethnicity.  wage differentials are still permissible, however, if they exist pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a system which measures earnings by quality or quantity of product, or another bona fide factor other than sex, race, or ethnicity. have you reviewed your equal employment opportunity (eeo) policies and any rules or practices related to compensation to identify and remedy any discrepancies based on an employee’s sex, race or ethnicity for positions that perform substantially similar work?  failure to do so can leave your agency vulnerable to discrimination lawsuits. harassment training for elected officials effective january 1, 2017, all local agency officials must receive sexual harassment prevention and education training if the agency provides “any type of compensation, salary, or stipend” to any of its officials.  agencies must also retain records of the dates local officials satisfy training requirements and of the entity that provided the training for at least five years following the training.  have you revised your harassment, discrimination and retaliation policies to reflect this?  how about your training and records retention policies? these are just a few examples of recent changes. there are always new laws and regulations on the horizon.  a regular review will help ensure that your agency is in compliance with current laws and regulations. cover the essential areas policies on leaves and discipline are often easy to find in most agency personnel rules.  but there are many other essential policies that are often left out of personnel rules.  some employees work two or more jobs in addition to their agency employment.  but do the agency’s personnel rules have an outside employment policy that could identify any potential conflicts of interest?  employees are issued smartphones, tablets, laptops, email addresses, official social media accounts or vehicles.  but does the agency have an equipment use policy that regulates use?  and even more specifically, does the equipment policy even reference email, current commonly used electronic devices or social media?  most agency personnel rules cover harassment and most likely discrimination, but what about retaliation?  retaliation cases have been on the rise for many years.  likewise, workplace violence and bullying have increasingly become more prevalent.  does your agency have workplace violence and abusive conduct policies?  it is important that your agency’s rules cover all the essential areas that affect employers in this day and age.  it can be difficult to keep up with all the latest technological changes and workplace issues.  that is why a regular review of your rules and policies is critical to maintain effective management and to reduce potential liability. delete obsolete or confusing rules many personnel rules and policies have not been updated for years – in some cases, decades.  this can leave rules that refer to departments, positions or technology your agency no longer has. while this may seem harmless, in some cases obsolete rules can lead to confusion in interpretation or enforcement.  if supervisors and managers are confused about who the rules apply to or how to apply the rules, it may lead to uneven enforcement which can leave the agency vulnerable to a discrimination claim. it is best to review the rules periodically to make sure the rules make sense and to remove obsolete or confusing rules. finally, keep in mind that adoption of or changes to your personnel rules or policies may need to be negotiated with affected employee organizations. check which policies you may be missing tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "minimum wage", discrimination, harassment, leaves, personnel policy, review, wage-gap political discussions in the workplace by jeffrey c. freedman on february 23, 2017 posted in employment, workplace policies even though the 2016 presidential election is almost four months in the rear view mirror, controversy continues, with the news each day describing what looks like a three ring circus in washington d.c.  pundits have opined that our country is polarized by politics as never before: cities vs. rural areas; college educated vs. high school educated citizens; red states vs. blue states, etc.  as a result, politics remains a major topic of discussion between friends, relatives and, of major importance to us, co-workers. what options are available to employers when these disputes spill over into the workplace? what can an employer do if two or more employees get into heated, boisterous, and perhaps even physical altercations over issues such as the new president’s actions or statements, nominations for cabinet positions, votes taken in the congress, or the supreme court vacancy? as shall be explained, an employer’s permissible reactions are generally limited to prohibiting political activity only when it impacts the work environment, but even then ideally only if the employer has in place and has communicated to its employees rules requiring that political activity not interfere with the proper functioning of the workplace. first of all, it needs to be noted that political opinion is not a protected classification under either federal or state anti-discrimination laws.  you will not find it listed in the california fair employment and housing act or the 1964 u.s. civil rights act.  however, political activity tied to a protected classification could lead to charges of discrimination or harassment, and could require an employer to conduct an investigation and to take appropriate remedial actions.  as an example, an employee with a disability might claim discrimination or harassment for speaking out about president trump’s mocking of a disabled news reporter during the campaign.  another example could be a claim made by a latino employee who alleges retaliation for speaking out against the president’s plan to build a wall along the u.s.-mexico border. beyond the possibility of a statutory claim, private sector employers have greater leeway here, as the first amendment free speech right only applies to governments.  for public employers, by contrast, the first amendment protects employee speech if it is on a matter of “public concern” and outside the scope of the employee’s official duties – in such circumstances, courts apply a balancing test to determine if the public employer can nevertheless restrict the speech.  also, in california, specific statutory provisions further limit the right of public employers to restrict political activities by their employees. government code section 3203 severely limits the right of cities, counties and most districts to place any restriction on the political activities of employees.  one clear exception is that employees are totally prohibited from participating in political activity while in uniform.  (gov. code sec 3206.)  labor code section 1101 prohibits employers from forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics. another caveat concerns situations where a political discussion or argument among employees touches on areas involving employee benefits or working conditions. an employer’s action to stop such discussions could amount to an unfair labor practice as employees have the right to discuss issues relating to their wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. of course, political spats that involve physical altercations should be addressed with existing agency rules prohibiting workplace violence. nonetheless, the government code does allow local agencies to adopt rules and regulations that prohibit or otherwise restrict employees from engaging in political activities during working hours and/or on the agency’s premises.  (gov. code sec 3207.)  however, in order to avoid applying this provision too broadly, the definitions of “politics” and “activity” need to be examined.  california’s statutes provide no guidance in this regard.  the california courts have had only a few opportunities to define “politics,” and have adopted a very broad definition in those situations where they needed to do so.  politics is not limited to supporting or opposing a candidate; it includes advocating or opposing a position or policy on any issue of public concern, such as civil rights, employment discrimination, war, foreign affairs, you name it!  the dictionary definition of “activity” is even more broad: “behavior or actions of a particular kind” or “the quality or state of being active” with “active” defined as “characterized by action rather than by contemplation or speculation.” in light of all these considerations, the following is recommended: employers and all supervisors should remain neutral and never take sides on any public issue when dealing with other employees. employers and all supervisors should never give preferential treatment to employees whose political views are the same as theirs and should never give less favorable treatment to employees whose political views are opposed to theirs. employers may adopt reasonable rules and regulations prohibiting political activities during work hours and/or on the agency’s premises. the rules and regulations should be specifically communicated to every employee in writing. these rules and regulations should specifically prohibit employees from allowing themselves to get into political disagreements with members of the public. as a practical matter, employers should be reluctant to warn, counsel or reprimand, let alone discipline, employees who engage in political discussions unless this interferes with or unduly interrupts the agency’s necessary work performance, involves a physical altercation, or poses an unreasonable risk of injury to person or property. in most situations, the manager’s action should not go beyond saying, “hey, get your work done. this is something you can discuss at another time!” the bottom line is that employers need to tread lightly in dealing with these sorts of situations and limit responses to situations which unduly interfere with getting the agency’s work done or which cross the line into areas protected by law, such as those where a protected classification is implicated.  legal counsel should be consulted if there are any questions that arise. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "government code", discrimination, election, first amendment, harassment, politics, workplace are you ready for upcoming negotiations? – know your contract costs by kristi recchia on february 21, 2017 posted in labor relations, negotiations it’s that time of the year when we begin to negotiate labor agreements set to end on june 30th.  have you started your preparations for the negotiating process? one critical step in labor negotiations is costing your existing mou.  what do we mean when we say “costing?”  it means you should be able to identify what each item in the mou costs on a fiscal year basis and thereby determine the total cost of the contract to your agency. direct & indirect costs – what are they? collective bargaining agreements contain both direct costs and indirect costs.  it is important to understand each of these concepts and determine their value.  direct costs are items that send cash out the door – compensation components and employer paid benefits are the two largest types of direct costs.  direct costs break down even further into categories such as pensionable, taxable, or those paid to a third party on behalf of an employee.  some direct costs can be determined by position; others are “bucket items” for which multi-year averages are the best method to determine costs. indirect costs are typically the value of contract provisions where cash isn’t necessarily leaving the organization but the provision has a value, for example, sick leave.  for most employers, the value is a productivity cost.  however, in other cases where you have minimum staffing, sick leave may result in direct costs via the payment of overtime (to cover the work of the sick employee). costing methodology  the process of costing is time-consuming and can be tedious.  also, often agencies rely on what they previously budgeted to spend vs. what they are actually spending.  it is recommended that you understand the difference and focus on what you are actually spending.   in addition, it is important to establish your costing methodology and then communicate it to key stakeholders (i.e. city manager, finance director, hr director, elected officials, etc.).  it is easier to start with the costing of the current mou and reach consensus on the methodology long before you engage in developing proposals and seeking authority for the next mou.  a good example is a frequently asked question – what would a 1% salary increase cost? well, we need to be clear about the question – 1% of base pay or 1% of total comp? are we including the value that 1% has on overtime costs?  have we factored in escalating provisions that we have previously agreed to pay the employer rate for retirement benefits or the impacts of health insurance premiums that were already negotiated and exist in the mou?  if the base pay for a bargaining group totals $6,287,290 and the total cost for the group is $9,664,591 – then thinking through the 1% question in this way makes a big difference! who handles the costing?  is it the finance department, the budget office, human resources?  hopefully, it is a collaborative effort. if you are fortunate to have a finance system that can prepare costing information and create costing scenarios – you are lucky!  for most agencies, downloading data from payroll and finance systems into excel spreadsheets to run costing calculations is more common.  have a conversation with your bargaining team leadership and chief negotiator early so you can determine the plan for costing. is costing really helpful? absolutely! understanding what each item costs sets the framework for identifying what each proposal in the negotiation process costs.  both agency and union proposals need to have a value identified in order to determine the feasibility of the proposal.  additionally, when you have analyzed the cost, you will clearly see what the real impact of a proposal might be.  clear costing data adds credibility to the meet and confer process.  you should be able to share costing information across the table and it can serve as an effective tool in explaining why items may not be able to be realized during negotiations.  if you find yourself at an impasse and engaged in the fact-finding process, then your costing data will be essential during the fact-finding hearing. as public agencies begin to see improvements in the financial condition of their organization, costing will continue to be a critical component in labor negotiations.  the long-term sustainability of the compensation structure and the ability to work within the structure require a solid and complete understanding of labor costs.  effectively using costing to determine one-time costs, the best use of a dollar, structural costs that increase in future years, etc., are issues elected officials want to understand and that you should understand as well. learn more want to learn more about the process of costing? join us at the lcw pre-conference workshop: costing labor contracts | march 8, 2017 | 9am – 4 pm | disneyland ® hotel the keys to successful negotiations include planning and costing. just like planning a vacation, the amount of time and effort you put into planning and costing can determine the success of the trip. costing contract proposals is similar to costing excursions on a vacation – they all sound like a good idea but can we afford them? join us at this workshop to learn the importance of costing and methods you can use to make costing easy.  register today (select pre-conference only) also, this presentation is the first workshop that is a part of the new lcw labor relations certification program©. this program is designed to provide labor relations practitioners education combined with practical hands-on experience in a variety of core areas. participate in individual seminars and receive a certificate of completion for each completed course or participate in all seven to earn the labor relations certificate.  learn more > tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "labor agreements", costing, mou, negotiation process are they ever coming back? – taking a proactive approach to leave management and employees who are on long-term leaves of absence by retirement blogger on february 14, 2017 posted in retirement this post was authored by michael youril. leaves of absences are one of the most complex and frustrating areas of personnel management that public agency employers face.  there are several complex, overlapping, and intersecting laws to apply and navigate.  in many situations, it is difficult for the agency to determine its rights and obligations. employers must determine if a leave is protected under the family medical leave act (“fmla”) and the california family rights act (“cfra”), the paid sick leave law, kin care, the americans with disabilities act (“ada”) and the fair employment and housing act (“feha”).  the workers’ compensation system and the agency’s retirement system can also create additional obligations for the employer.  violating an employee’s rights under any of these various leave and disability laws, among others, may subject the agency to expensive lawsuits and liability.  at the same time, employers have a need to determine whether an employee is going to return to work and to address its staffing needs. a common problem employers face are long-term leaves created through the “serial note.”  an employee may turn in a doctor’s note putting them off for a short period of time that can be accommodated by the employer.  however, when the leave is coming to an end, the employee turns in another note extending the leave by a similar period.  this pattern can go on for months or years and it becomes uncertain when, if ever, the employee will return from leave.  employers face further uncertainty because each leave viewed in isolation appears to be reasonable and finite, but when viewed in its totality creates a hardship and is indefinite. employers are often uncertain what rights and obligations they have when an employee is on a leave of absence and are left with many unanswered questions.  when can the employer request more information regarding the employee’s leaves or work restrictions?  how can the employer request more information with violating leave and disability laws or the employee’s privacy rights?  when should leave be provided as a reasonable accommodation and when is it no longer protected under disability and leave laws?  when is another interactive process meeting necessary? answering these questions and navigating the various laws often requires a long-term strategy and requires an adaptive multi-step approach.  agencies must make a case-by-case assessment while still trying to maintain consistency in the way it manages leaves for all of its employees.  employee leaves are highly fact specific, but a differing treatment of similarly situated employees may leave the agency open to discrimination or retaliation lawsuits. public agencies subject to the california public employees’ retirement system (“calpers”) and the county employees retirement law of 1937 (“cerl” or “’37 act”) also must determine when they have an obligation to apply for disability retirement on behalf of an employee.  under these systems, an employer cannot separate a vested employee for disability.  instead, they must apply for disability retirement on the employee’s behalf and must often take preliminary steps to ensure that the agency has satisfied its obligation under disability laws and afforded the employee due process when required. we are here to help! lcw is offering a leave of absence review program to assist agencies in developing a tailored, proactive approach to managing employees who are on long-term leaves of absence.  we will provide specific advice and strategies to address each employer’s needs and every employee’s circumstances.  these services include reviewing agency-wide leave concerns and policies, reviewing medical documentation for sufficiency and necessary follow-up, reviewing specific leaves of absence, engaging in the interactive process, developing best practices protocols, and navigating the disability retirement process.  for more information on lcw’s leave review program, visit www.lcwlegal.com/leaves-management. we also recently hosted a webinar on this topic – proactive leave management and addressing long-term leaves of absence. for more information or to register, visit our website. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: "leave of absence", disability, long-term leave, serial note, tags: leaves no bones about it: no compensation for canine handlers training to be canine instructors by vpower on february 7, 2017 posted in wage and hour this post was authored by alison r. kalinski the united states court of federal claims (a court with nationwide jurisdiction hearing specialized claims against the federal government) recently held that a group of certified canine handlers were not entitled to compensation for time spent training to become certified canine instructors.  this was because the training was voluntary and its purpose was not to improve their current duties.  the case, almanza v. united states, was decided on july 26, 2016. the plaintiffs in almanza were 290 customs and border protection officers and border patrol agents (the “agents”) currently or formerly employed by u.s. customs and border protection, department of homeland security (“cbp”). background cbp operates a canine training program based at two training centers.  agents wishing to work with canines must attend a seven-week training program.  canines, canine-handler agents, and canine instructors receive their training through this program.  upon successful completion, handlers are certified to work with a canine for one year, subject to monthly maintenance training under a certified instructor. certified canine handlers may also seek additional certification to become an instructor.  canine instructors perform the same duties as handlers, but also have additional responsibilities assisting handlers maintaining their certification.  certified canine instructors are eligible for promotion as a canine instructor at cbp’s training centers.  an agent certified as canine instructor, but who does not work as an instructor at a training center, does not get a pay raise, new title, or additional compensation.  having the canine instructor certification, however, may help the canine handler advance into a supervisory position which could result in a promotion and pay raise, though canine handlers can still advance without the instructor certification. to become a certified canine instructor, the agent must successfully complete a rigorous 12-week training program called the detection canine instructor course (the “course”).  cbp regularly solicits applicants for the course through memoranda stating that agents who successfully complete the course will need to perform additional duties, such as providing instruction support or maintenance training for other handlers.  there is no requirement for canine handlers to participate in the course.  canine handlers who do not have or seek canine instructor certification do not suffer any adverse consequences in their current jobs and may continue to work as canine handlers without attending the course.  handlers must submit an application and interview for the course and selection is competitive; handlers are often denied spots because they lack sufficient experience.  if a handler is accepted but fails the course, the handler is not demoted or disciplined and can reapply. to pass the course, the handlers must pass four exams with a minimum score of 90%.  no working hours are set aside for studying.  the handlers were encouraged to study the material outside of their normal working hours and on the weekend.  the handlers were not paid for time they spent studying.  accordingly, they sued for back pay and overtime compensation under the flsa for the time they spent studying. decision process the court had to determine whether the studying time was “hours of work” under the flsa.  because this case concerned federal employees, the applicable regulation is 5 c.f.r. §551.423(a)(2) which provides that time spent training outside of regular hours is “hours of work” if “(i) [t]he employee is directed to participate in the training by his or her employing agency, and (ii) [t]he purpose of the training is to improve the employee’s performance of the duties and responsibilities of his or her current position.”  while the court easily concluded that the studying here constituted training outside of regular working hours because the studying was necessary to prepare for the exams, the court concluded the training was not “hours of work” requiring compensation. results first, the plaintiffs were not required to participate in the training – it was purely voluntary and based on a competitive application.  canine handlers could continue to serve in their positions without taking the course.  second, the purpose of the training was to become a certified canine instructor – not to improve the employee’s duties as a canine handler.  while it was undisputed that the course would improve the employee’s duties as a canine handler, that was a byproduct of the training, not its purpose.  the goal of the training was to provide new skills to use as a canine instructor.  accordingly, the plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements for compensation of training time and the court granted summary judgment to the cbp. application to non-federal employers in california almanza is from outside of california and the ninth circuit (the federal appellate court covering california) and is not controlling authority in this state.  nevertheless, it provides guidance on how california employers should determine if training time is hours worked requiring compensation under the flsa.   for non-federal employers in california, the applicable regulation to determine whether training time must be compensated is 29 c.f.r. §785.27 which provides that training time need not be compensated if all of the following four criteria are met: attendance is outside of the employee’s regular working hours; attendance is in fact voluntary; the course, lecture, or meeting is not directly related to the employee’s job; and the employee does not perform any productive work during such attendance. while the applicable regulation for non-federal employers in california is different than the regulation at issue in the almanza case, the almanza case is useful because its discussion is relevant to factors (b) and (c) above, namely, whether the training is voluntary and related to the employee’s job.  in evaluating whether training time is voluntary, employers should consider whether the employee is required to participate and if the training aids an employee in obtaining promotions or pay raises.  employers should also consider whether the training is directly related to the employee’s job.  if the focus of the training is to provide the employee with new skills or train the employee for another job, then the training is likely not “directly related” to the employee’s job.  this is true even if the training incidentally improves skills needed for the employee’s job. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: almanza v. united states, border protection officers, cannine handlers, certification, compensation, instructors, training, wage & hour for better or worse: ten years of the firefighters procedural bill of rights act by stefanie k. vaudreuil on february 2, 2017 posted in public safety issues in 2007, the firefighters procedural bill of rights act (fbor) was enacted after several years of unsuccessful attempts to pass similar legislation. although the fbor is modeled after the longstanding public safety officers procedural bill of rights act (pobr) [gov. code, §§ 3300 et seq.], that statutory scheme, which was originally intended for peace officers, presents numerous challenges to the fire service. as described by several members of the fire service, the culture is quite different from the culture of law enforcement. the observations of fire chiefs and captains show that the pobr’s procedures and protections are not necessarily a good fit. an important difference between firefighters and peace officers is that firefighters work twenty-four-hour shifts; additionally, at least 10 days a month while on these 24-hour shifts, firefighters not only work together but also grocery shop, eat, share significant downtime, and live together. police officers do not live with each other while on shift, and they spend a substantial amount of time engaging in solitary law enforcement activities. the dynamic created by the firefighters’ living situation is quite different than in law enforcement. prior to the fbor, fire captains could have frank discussions with subordinates without the constraints of the fbor’s procedures. although the living situations have not changed from before and after the fbor, many fire service members believe the rigidity and formalities of the fbor have altered their culture, causing some fire captains to be reluctant to correct or discipline subordinates. history of the fbor the fbor’s history and the incongruent comparisons of firefighters to peace officers illustrate the effect the fbor has had on the fire service culture. in 1999, assembly bill 1411 was introduced as the firefighters procedural bill of rights act. in an effort to emulate and afford the same rights as the pobr, the bill substituted the term “firefighter” for “peace officer” and was otherwise word-for-word identical to the pobr. ab 1411 ultimately failed to pass the senate appropriations committee. in the 2007 version, not much changed in the statutory language. however, merely inserting “firefighter” in place of “peace officer” is demonstrative of the adage . . . apples and oranges. according to assembly member john longville, he introduced ab 1411 to “permit firefighters to engage in political activity in the same manner [as public safety officers] and . . .  [to] require the same procedures and conditions for the investigation and interrogation of a firefighter that could lead to punitive action.” it was also intended “to assure that stable relations are continued throughout the state and to further assure that effective services are provided to all people of the state.” in august 1975, ab 301 (pobr) was signed by the governor of california. in the july 1975 california organization of police and sheriffs (cops) journal, pobr was described as necessary to protect the rights of police officers who were “accused of minor infractions, suddenly find[ing] themselves transferred to graveyard shifts or to the furthest reaches of the jurisdiction. others are given the most tedious or undesirable assignments for long periods of time. there are the ‘serving your punishment’ assignments . . . .” another example of police officer rights allegedly being abused was the “indiscriminate use of the polygraph against police officers.” firefighters work 24-hour shifts—police officers do not. it is not possible to punish a firefighter by assigning him a graveyard shift. when the fbor bills were introduced, there were no allegations of polygraph abuse or unreasonable punishment in the fire service. what exactly the firefighters wanted in 1999 that they were not already entitled to under constitutional due process remains unclear. assembly bill 1411 eventually died in the senate. in 2006, another legislative effort failed. ab 2857, which ultimately died in the assembly, was introduced to extend the pobr coverage to firefighters and to overturn the appellate court decision gauthier v. city of red bluff (1995) 34 cal.app.4th 1441, which held that arson investigators were the only fire personnel who were covered by the pobr. finally, with ab 220, the fbor was enacted. when ab 220 was introduced, the intent was for the fbor “to mirror most, if not all, of the provisions in pobor [an alternative acronym for pobr] and make them applicable to firefighters, including those who are paramedics or emergency medical technicians.” comparing the incomparable assembly bill 220’s proponent, the california professional firefighters (cpf), compared firefighters to public safety officers: “firefighters often find themselves in situations where their sworn duty commands appropriate steps to ensure the safety of the public. the reality is that on the street, there are situations where the role of a firefighter intersects with that of a peace officer.” staff evaluating the bill, however, expressed skepticism with this comparison, noting that no published cases were found involving a firefighter who alleged his due process rights were violated “by an interrogation or investigation for misconduct while executing his job duties.” when considering the history of the pobr and the fbor and the reasons cited in support of and in opposition to the statutes, the differences are clear. in each of the attempts to pass the fbor, the proponents claimed that firefighters “could be” subject to investigations and interrogations that lead to disciplinary action. opponents argued that firefighters simply were not the subject of investigations and interrogations to the same degree as peace officers. one of the comments from opponents of the bill was that the pobr created a “hefty” body of case law resulting from the statutes. indeed, during the first ten years of the pobr, california appellate courts heard 30 cases involving the pobr. the same cannot be said for the fbor. in the first 10 years of the fbor, only two reported cases have analyzed or interpreted the fbor (poole v. orange county fire authority and seibert v. city of san jose), and a third case in 2016 (clark v. california dept. of forestry and fire protection), which was decided by a federal district court, did not serve to interpret member rights and instead only considered a point related to litigation of disputes (it found that the fbor bars individual liability for firefighters who violate the fbor due process requirements). conclusion after 10 years of the fbor, fire chiefs, deputy chiefs, battalion chiefs, and captains have cited to the fbor’s procedures as confusing and irrelevant to the fire service. in support of the fbor, the legislature declared that “[f]irefighters who trust their instincts in these volatile emergency situations are deserving of due process rights and protections should those circumstances arise.” however, firefighters already had due process rights and protections, as well as substantial protections through collective bargaining. perhaps after another 10 years, the effect of the fbor on the culture will have diminished because by then many of the firefighters will have known only an fbor-governed fire service. tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment tags: discipline, due process, fbor, fire fighters, rights older posts › about this blog liebert cassidy whitmore is a full service employment and labor relations law firm providing expert consultation, representation, litigation, negotiation and investigation services to public agency management... more stay connected subscribe to this blog via rss view our linkedin profile follow us on twitter subscribe to this blog by email your website url topics appeals bankruptcy brown act cfra class/collective action conferences constitutional rights disability discrimination e-discovery education employment ethics first amendment flsa fmla harassment healthcare hiring labor relations layoffs lcw seminars legislation lessons learned liebert cassidy whitmore litigation military discrimination military leave negotiations pension perb personnel issues privacy public safety issues public sector retaliation retirement safety social media tips from the table travel time uncategorized userra wage and hour workplace policies archives archives select month march 2017 february 2017 january 2017 december 2016 november 2016 october 2016 september 2016 august 2016 july 2016 june 2016 may 2016 april 2016 march 2016 february 2016 january 2016 december 2015 november 2015 october 2015 september 2015 august 2015 july 2015 june 2015 may 2015 april 2015 march 2015 february 2015 january 2015 december 2014 november 2014 october 2014 september 2014 august 2014 july 2014 june 2014 may 2014 april 2014 march 2014 february 2014 january 2014 december 2013 november 2013 october 2013 september 2013 august 2013 july 2013 june 2013 may 2013 april 2013 march 2013 february 2013 january 2013 december 2012 november 2012 october 2012 september 2012 august 2012 july 2012 june 2012 may 2012 april 2012 march 2012 february 2012 january 2012 december 2011 november 2011 october 2011 september 2011 august 2011 july 2011 june 2011 may 2011 april 2011 march 2011 february 2011 january 2011 david urbandavid urban represents organizations in all aspects of labor and employment law, and has over fifteen years of litigation experience. he frequently advises on free speech law as it applies to public employers and educators. more...melanie chaneymelanie chaney is an experienced litigator who represents liebert cassidy whitmore clients including cities, counties, community college districts, school districts, public safety departments and special districts in employment litigation more...lisa s. charbonneaulisa charbonneau represents and advises liebert cassidy whitmore clients in all matters pertaining to labor and employment law. more...paul d. knothepaul knothe is an associate in liebert cassidy whitmore's los angeles office. paul advises and represents clients in the areas of employment law and labor relations. more...erin kunzeerin kunze provides representation and legal counsel to liebert cassidy whitmore clients on a variety of employment and education law matters, including retirement, labor relations in the public and private nonprofit sectors, public safety, and safety planning in schools. more...megan lewismegan lewis provides representation and legal counsel to liebert cassidy whitmore clients in a variety of labor and employment contexts. she is experienced in all stages of litigation, drafting motions, analyzing legal issues, and has an excellent track record of providing extensive communication to clients. more...alysha stein-manesalysha stein-manes provides representation and counsel to lcw clients in all matters pertaining to labor, employment, and education law. more...stefanie k. vaudreuilstefanie vaudreuil provides general counsel advice to and litigates on behalf of public agency employers, public schools, charter schools, and private education institutions. more... @lcwlegal lcwlegal's most recent twitter posts discontinuation of a long-standing practice of accommodating disabled employees through light-duty may be a…… https://t.co/v5x4in0bp6 16 hours ago am i a municipal corporation? maybe. does it matter? yes! https://t.co/0su6ncbjwv https://t.co/dgqwnfmcfp 1 week ago tips from the table: dealing with elected officials https://t.co/vhltkrsmhc 2 weeks ago thank you everyone for attending the #lcwac17. we couldn't have done it without you. 3 weeks ago are you ready to answer the $64,000 question? stop by the #lcwac17 closing session to find out. 3 weeks ago follow lcwlegal on twitter >> liebert cassidy whitmore california public agency labor & employment blog privacy policy terms of use los angeles 6033 west century blvd 5th floor los angeles, ca 90045 phone: 310.981.2000 san francisco 135 main street 7th floor san francisco, ca 94105 phone: 415.512.3000 fresno 5250 n. palm avenue suite 310 fresno, ca 93704 phone: 559.256.7800 san diego 550 west c street suite 620 san diego, ca 92101 phone: 619.481.5900 sacramento 400 capitol mall suite 1260 sacramento, ca 95814 phone: 916.584.7000 copyright © 2017, liebert cassidy whitmore. all rights reserved. strategy, design, marketing & support by lexblog


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 9421

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.71% (726)
and - 3.18% (300)
for - 1.9% (179)
our - 1.51% (142)
ted - 1.13% (106)
- 1.09% (103)
are - 1.07% (101)
that - 1.06% (100)
act - 1.03% (97)
employee - 1.01% (95)
per - 0.97% (91)
not - 0.96% (90)
her - 0.91% (86)
public - 0.84% (79)
can - 0.76% (72)
all - 0.75% (71)
you - 0.66% (62)
with - 0.64% (60)
court - 0.57% (54)
employer - 0.55% (52)
work - 0.53% (50)
train - 0.53% (50)
cost - 0.52% (49)
able - 0.52% (49)
red - 0.51% (48)
his - 0.5% (47)
training - 0.49% (46)
labor - 0.49% (46)
have - 0.49% (46)
employees - 0.49% (46)
off - 0.47% (44)
agency - 0.47% (44)
fire - 0.45% (42)
was - 0.44% (41)
leave - 0.42% (40)
its - 0.42% (40)
use - 0.42% (40)
this - 0.42% (40)
over - 0.4% (38)
they - 0.39% (37)
law - 0.39% (37)
ten - 0.38% (36)
time - 0.37% (35)
their - 0.37% (35)
from - 0.37% (35)
california - 0.37% (35)
end - 0.36% (34)
city - 0.36% (34)
under - 0.36% (34)
person - 0.35% (33)
more - 0.35% (33)
employers - 0.35% (33)
out - 0.35% (33)
term - 0.34% (32)
ever - 0.34% (32)
your - 0.34% (32)
pra - 0.33% (31)
one - 0.33% (31)
corporation - 0.33% (31)
rules - 0.33% (31)
code - 0.32% (30)
were - 0.32% (30)
other - 0.32% (30)
may - 0.31% (29)
ring - 0.31% (29)
canine - 0.31% (29)
any - 0.31% (29)
district - 0.3% (28)
firefighter - 0.29% (27)
here - 0.29% (27)
sent - 0.28% (26)
right - 0.28% (26)
costing - 0.28% (26)
hour - 0.28% (26)
when - 0.27% (25)
municipal - 0.27% (25)
officer - 0.27% (25)
fbor - 0.27% (25)
handler - 0.25% (24)
record - 0.25% (24)
sec - 0.25% (24)
how - 0.24% (23)
employment - 0.24% (23)
provide - 0.24% (23)
policies - 0.24% (23)
- 0.23% (22)
late - 0.23% (22)
view - 0.23% (22)
require - 0.23% (22)
will - 0.22% (21)
2017 - 0.22% (21)
case - 0.22% (21)
agencies - 0.22% (21)
should - 0.22% (21)
rights - 0.22% (21)
ability - 0.22% (21)
which - 0.22% (21)
state - 0.22% (21)
firefighters - 0.22% (21)
who - 0.22% (21)
post - 0.21% (20)
direct - 0.21% (20)
employee’s - 0.21% (20)
long - 0.21% (20)
also - 0.21% (20)
program - 0.21% (20)
.” - 0.21% (20)
even - 0.2% (19)
part - 0.2% (19)
districts - 0.2% (19)
kin - 0.2% (19)
year - 0.2% (19)
like - 0.2% (19)
these - 0.19% (18)
laws - 0.19% (18)
instructor - 0.19% (18)
handlers - 0.19% (18)
costs - 0.19% (18)
protect - 0.19% (18)
process - 0.19% (18)
wage - 0.18% (17)
while - 0.18% (17)
such - 0.18% (17)
officers - 0.18% (17)
email - 0.18% (17)
each - 0.18% (17)
political - 0.18% (17)
does - 0.17% (16)
has - 0.17% (16)
because - 0.17% (16)
course - 0.17% (16)
determine - 0.17% (16)
could - 0.17% (16)
personal - 0.17% (16)
own - 0.17% (16)
what - 0.17% (16)
must - 0.17% (16)
records - 0.17% (16)
place - 0.17% (16)
2016 - 0.17% (16)
compensation - 0.17% (16)
issue - 0.17% (16)
reasonable - 0.16% (15)
discrimination - 0.16% (15)
recruit - 0.16% (15)
let - 0.16% (15)
220 - 0.16% (15)
whether - 0.16% (15)
january - 0.16% (15)
but - 0.16% (15)
review - 0.16% (15)
only - 0.16% (15)
communication - 0.16% (15)
hours - 0.15% (14)
personnel - 0.15% (14)
regulation - 0.15% (14)
rate - 0.15% (14)
years - 0.15% (14)
school - 0.15% (14)
most - 0.15% (14)
sure - 0.15% (14)
ever, - 0.15% (14)
official - 0.15% (14)
need - 0.15% (14)
new - 0.15% (14)
section - 0.15% (14)
disability - 0.15% (14)
policy - 0.15% (14)
police - 0.14% (13)
(b) - 0.14% (13)
leaves - 0.14% (13)
pay - 0.14% (13)
lcw - 0.14% (13)
pobr - 0.14% (13)
main - 0.14% (13)
negotiation - 0.14% (13)
however, - 0.14% (13)
specific - 0.14% (13)
using - 0.14% (13)
february - 0.14% (13)
retirement - 0.14% (13)
los - 0.14% (13)
position - 0.13% (12)
action - 0.13% (12)
corporations - 0.13% (12)
accounts - 0.13% (12)
2015 - 0.13% (12)
cover - 0.13% (12)
2013 - 0.13% (12)
where - 0.13% (12)
2011 - 0.13% (12)
2014 - 0.13% (12)
business - 0.13% (12)
2012 - 0.13% (12)
220(b) - 0.13% (12)
march - 0.13% (12)
service - 0.13% (12)
those - 0.13% (12)
subject - 0.13% (12)
fact - 0.13% (12)
job - 0.13% (12)
officials - 0.13% (12)
through - 0.13% (12)
about - 0.13% (12)
them - 0.12% (11)
agency’s - 0.12% (11)
workplace - 0.12% (11)
communications - 0.12% (11)
practice - 0.12% (11)
situation - 0.12% (11)
tags: - 0.12% (11)
comment - 0.12% (11)
addition - 0.12% (11)
government - 0.12% (11)
recycle - 0.12% (11)
there - 0.12% (11)
conduct - 0.12% (11)
held - 0.12% (11)
bill - 0.12% (11)
relations - 0.12% (11)
safety - 0.12% (11)
perform - 0.12% (11)
apply - 0.12% (11)
plaintiffs - 0.12% (11)
essential - 0.12% (11)
private - 0.12% (11)
make - 0.12% (11)
linkedin - 0.12% (11)
assign - 0.12% (11)
prohibit - 0.11% (10)
tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle - 0.11% (10)
plus - 0.11% (10)
cassidy - 0.11% (10)
purpose - 0.11% (10)
put - 0.11% (10)
used - 0.11% (10)
posted - 0.11% (10)
legal - 0.11% (10)
effect - 0.11% (10)
mou - 0.11% (10)
first - 0.11% (10)
whitmore - 0.11% (10)
federal - 0.11% (10)
liebert - 0.11% (10)
regulations - 0.11% (10)
into - 0.11% (10)
another - 0.11% (10)
light - 0.11% (10)
situations - 0.11% (10)
same - 0.11% (10)
 a - 0.11% (10)
matter - 0.11% (10)
negotiations - 0.11% (10)
duties - 0.11% (10)
feha - 0.11% (10)
base - 0.11% (10)
way - 0.11% (10)
get - 0.1% (9)
turn - 0.1% (9)
discuss - 0.1% (9)
author - 0.1% (9)
accommodation - 0.1% (9)
table - 0.1% (9)
less - 0.1% (9)
see - 0.1% (9)
month - 0.1% (9)
order - 0.1% (9)
find - 0.1% (9)
system - 0.1% (9)
“a - 0.1% (9)
information - 0.1% (9)
certified - 0.1% (9)
elected - 0.1% (9)
issues - 0.1% (9)
areas - 0.1% (9)
entity - 0.1% (9)
harassment - 0.1% (9)
benefit - 0.1% (9)
claim - 0.1% (9)
districts, - 0.1% (9)
protection - 0.1% (9)
san - 0.1% (9)
after - 0.1% (9)
consider - 0.1% (9)
continue - 0.08% (8)
cases - 0.08% (8)
based - 0.08% (8)
during - 0.08% (8)
duty - 0.08% (8)
similar - 0.08% (8)
peace - 0.08% (8)
due - 0.08% (8)
supreme - 0.08% (8)
appeal - 0.08% (8)
minimum - 0.08% (8)
july - 0.08% (8)
writing - 0.08% (8)
phone - 0.08% (8)
schools - 0.08% (8)
full - 0.08% (8)
current - 0.08% (8)
example - 0.08% (8)
had - 0.08% (8)
provides - 0.08% (8)
individual - 0.08% (8)
blog - 0.08% (8)
question - 0.08% (8)
absence - 0.08% (8)
some - 0.08% (8)
many - 0.08% (8)
function - 0.08% (8)
additional - 0.08% (8)
certification - 0.08% (8)
search - 0.08% (8)
often - 0.08% (8)
receive - 0.08% (8)
more... - 0.08% (8)
different - 0.08% (8)
recent - 0.08% (8)
200 - 0.07% (7)
devices - 0.07% (7)
provision - 0.07% (7)
requiring - 0.07% (7)
study - 0.07% (7)
become - 0.07% (7)
requirement - 0.07% (7)
education - 0.07% (7)
week - 0.07% (7)
earn - 0.07% (7)
long-term - 0.07% (7)
fbor, - 0.07% (7)
member - 0.07% (7)
decision - 0.07% (7)
politics - 0.07% (7)
create - 0.07% (7)
rely - 0.07% (7)
working - 0.07% (7)
prepare - 0.07% (7)
relate - 0.07% (7)
power - 0.07% (7)
change - 0.07% (7)
take - 0.07% (7)
required - 0.07% (7)
light-duty - 0.07% (7)
outside - 0.07% (7)
found - 0.07% (7)
specifically - 0.07% (7)
june - 0.07% (7)
plan - 0.07% (7)
agent - 0.07% (7)
courts - 0.07% (7)
august - 0.07% (7)
statute - 0.07% (7)
charter - 0.07% (7)
discussion - 0.07% (7)
clients - 0.07% (7)
irrigation - 0.07% (7)
follow - 0.07% (7)
line - 0.07% (7)
activity - 0.07% (7)
success - 0.07% (7)
effective - 0.07% (7)
almanza - 0.06% (6)
october - 0.06% (6)
best - 0.06% (6)
serve - 0.06% (6)
set - 0.06% (6)
result - 0.06% (6)
privacy - 0.06% (6)
improve - 0.06% (6)
bargaining - 0.06% (6)
academy - 0.06% (6)
though - 0.06% (6)
note - 0.06% (6)
september - 0.06% (6)
address - 0.06% (6)
lead - 0.06% (6)
restrict - 0.06% (6)
including - 0.06% (6)
related - 0.06% (6)
april - 0.06% (6)
regular - 0.06% (6)
would - 0.06% (6)
clear - 0.06% (6)
limit - 0.06% (6)
enforcement - 0.06% (6)
stored - 0.06% (6)
tips - 0.06% (6)
retaliation - 0.06% (6)
without - 0.06% (6)
request - 0.06% (6)
necessary - 0.06% (6)
participate - 0.06% (6)
understand - 0.06% (6)
protected - 0.06% (6)
investigation - 0.06% (6)
statutes - 0.06% (6)
mean - 0.06% (6)
management - 0.06% (6)
directly - 0.06% (6)
condition - 0.06% (6)
department - 0.06% (6)
litigation - 0.06% (6)
total - 0.06% (6)
states - 0.06% (6)
attend - 0.06% (6)
cities - 0.06% (6)
obligation - 0.06% (6)
never - 0.06% (6)
successful - 0.06% (6)
develop - 0.06% (6)
answer - 0.06% (6)
studying - 0.06% (6)
remain - 0.06% (6)
counsel - 0.06% (6)
then - 0.06% (6)
help - 0.06% (6)
proper - 0.06% (6)
november - 0.06% (6)
recruits - 0.06% (6)
just - 0.06% (6)
she - 0.06% (6)
two - 0.06% (6)
december - 0.06% (6)
pass - 0.06% (6)
proposal - 0.06% (6)
return - 0.06% (6)
jurisdiction - 0.06% (6)
than - 0.06% (6)
value - 0.06% (6)
instructors - 0.06% (6)
local - 0.06% (6)
fully - 0.06% (6)
appellate - 0.06% (6)
introduced - 0.05% (5)
presents - 0.05% (5)
reside - 0.05% (5)
assembly - 0.05% (5)
good - 0.05% (5)
four - 0.05% (5)
procedures - 0.05% (5)
approach - 0.05% (5)
agents - 0.05% (5)
adopt - 0.05% (5)
concerns - 0.05% (5)
actions - 0.05% (5)
culture - 0.05% (5)
business, - 0.05% (5)
cbp - 0.05% (5)
prepared - 0.05% (5)
electronic - 0.05% (5)
phone: - 0.05% (5)
meet - 0.05% (5)
angeles - 0.05% (5)
experience - 0.05% (5)
well - 0.05% (5)
nonprofit - 0.05% (5)
provisions - 0.05% (5)
definition - 0.05% (5)
employers, - 0.05% (5)
county - 0.05% (5)
effort - 0.05% (5)
item - 0.05% (5)
chief - 0.05% (5)
town - 0.05% (5)
cities, - 0.05% (5)
“municipal - 0.05% (5)
costs. - 0.05% (5)
members - 0.05% (5)
statutory - 0.05% (5)
been - 0.05% (5)
period - 0.05% (5)
ago - 0.05% (5)
complete - 0.05% (5)
contract - 0.05% (5)
compliance - 0.05% (5)
race - 0.05% (5)
ready - 0.05% (5)
case, - 0.05% (5)
positions - 0.05% (5)
ethnicity - 0.05% (5)
fair - 0.05% (5)
factor - 0.05% (5)
exist - 0.05% (5)
entitled - 0.05% (5)
 the - 0.05% (5)
did - 0.05% (5)
behalf - 0.05% (5)
discipline - 0.05% (5)
paid - 0.05% (5)
practices - 0.05% (5)
organization - 0.05% (5)
employees. - 0.05% (5)
course, - 0.05% (5)
method - 0.05% (5)
interpret - 0.05% (5)
presentation - 0.05% (5)
increase - 0.05% (5)
likely - 0.05% (5)
providing - 0.05% (5)
voluntary - 0.05% (5)
allow - 0.05% (5)
raise - 0.05% (5)
program, - 0.05% (5)
disabled - 0.05% (5)
protections - 0.05% (5)
border - 0.05% (5)
very - 0.05% (5)
themselves - 0.05% (5)
support - 0.05% (5)
counties - 0.05% (5)
learn - 0.05% (5)
discrimination, - 0.05% (5)
activities - 0.05% (5)
further - 0.05% (5)
provided - 0.05% (5)
us, - 0.05% (5)
rules. - 0.05% (5)
until - 0.05% (5)
received - 0.05% (5)
penal - 0.05% (5)
water - 0.05% (5)
important - 0.05% (5)
day - 0.05% (5)
back - 0.04% (4)
job. - 0.04% (4)
law, - 0.04% (4)
guidance - 0.04% (4)
sued - 0.04% (4)
procedural - 0.04% (4)
applicable - 0.04% (4)
harassment, - 0.04% (4)
discussions - 0.04% (4)
identify - 0.04% (4)
want - 0.04% (4)
flsa - 0.04% (4)
following - 0.04% (4)
several - 0.04% (4)
vs. - 0.04% (4)
2017, - 0.04% (4)
media - 0.04% (4)
changes - 0.04% (4)
authored - 0.04% (4)
refer - 0.04% (4)
reviewing - 0.04% (4)
services - 0.04% (4)
give - 0.04% (4)
and, - 0.04% (4)
service. - 0.04% (4)
planning - 0.04% (4)
confusing - 0.04% (4)
rates - 0.04% (4)
obligations - 0.04% (4)
obsolete - 0.04% (4)
navigating - 0.04% (4)
representation - 0.04% (4)
affect - 0.04% (4)
engage - 0.04% (4)
within - 0.04% (4)
various - 0.04% (4)
liability - 0.04% (4)
agreements - 0.04% (4)
act. - 0.04% (4)
storage - 0.04% (4)
220(b). - 0.04% (4)
matters - 0.04% (4)
poses - 0.04% (4)
test - 0.04% (4)
chiefs - 0.04% (4)
special - 0.04% (4)
staff - 0.04% (4)
common - 0.04% (4)
board - 0.04% (4)
broad - 0.04% (4)
disclosure - 0.04% (4)
property - 0.04% (4)
spent - 0.04% (4)
according - 0.04% (4)
geographical - 0.04% (4)
conditions - 0.04% (4)
corporation” - 0.04% (4)
counties, - 0.04% (4)
individuals - 0.04% (4)
represents - 0.04% (4)
against - 0.04% (4)
reach - 0.04% (4)
finance - 0.04% (4)
accommodate - 0.04% (4)
failure - 0.04% (4)
difference - 0.04% (4)
spend - 0.04% (4)
relevant - 0.04% (4)
lawsuit - 0.04% (4)
months - 0.04% (4)
reassignment - 0.04% (4)
step - 0.04% (4)
sick - 0.04% (4)
created - 0.04% (4)
before - 0.04% (4)
permanent - 0.04% (4)
employer’s - 0.04% (4)
application - 0.04% (4)
sector - 0.04% (4)
penalties - 0.04% (4)
viewed - 0.04% (4)
ensure - 0.04% (4)
benefits - 0.04% (4)
satisfy - 0.04% (4)
injured - 0.04% (4)
dealing - 0.04% (4)
city’s - 0.04% (4)
speech - 0.04% (4)
smith - 0.04% (4)
include - 0.04% (4)
substantial - 0.04% (4)
confer - 0.04% (4)
interrogation - 0.04% (4)
amendment - 0.04% (4)
lcwlegal - 0.04% (4)
president - 0.04% (4)
assignments - 0.04% (4)
account. - 0.04% (4)
group - 0.04% (4)
jose - 0.04% (4)
collective - 0.04% (4)
unreasonable - 0.04% (4)
1411 - 0.04% (4)
thus - 0.04% (4)
focus - 0.04% (4)
engaging - 0.04% (4)
became - 0.04% (4)
real - 0.04% (4)
captains - 0.04% (4)
explained - 0.04% (4)
still - 0.04% (4)
shifts - 0.04% (4)
requirements - 0.04% (4)
process, - 0.03% (3)
down - 0.03% (3)
already - 0.03% (3)
instructor. - 0.03% (3)
costing? - 0.03% (3)
medical - 0.03% (3)
uncertain - 0.03% (3)
others - 0.03% (3)
states, - 0.03% (3)
variety - 0.03% (3)
methodology - 0.03% (3)
authority - 0.03% (3)
retain - 0.03% (3)
proposals - 0.03% (3)
developing - 0.03% (3)
lawsuits - 0.03% (3)
communicate - 0.03% (3)
topic - 0.03% (3)
seek - 0.03% (3)
promotion - 0.03% (3)
face - 0.03% (3)
interfere - 0.03% (3)
physical - 0.03% (3)
overtime - 0.03% (3)
prohibiting - 0.03% (3)
items - 0.03% (3)
course.  - 0.03% (3)
needs - 0.03% (3)
maintain - 0.03% (3)
recently - 0.03% (3)
every - 0.03% (3)
treatment - 0.03% (3)
united - 0.03% (3)
also, - 0.03% (3)
critical - 0.03% (3)
impact - 0.03% (3)
violence - 0.03% (3)
restriction - 0.03% (3)
too - 0.03% (3)
liability. - 0.03% (3)
duties. - 0.03% (3)
amount - 0.03% (3)
involving - 0.03% (3)
election - 0.03% (3)
 for - 0.03% (3)
data - 0.03% (3)
 it - 0.03% (3)
classification - 0.03% (3)
indirect - 0.03% (3)
u.s. - 0.03% (3)
agency. - 0.03% (3)
social - 0.03% (3)
proactive - 0.03% (3)
supervisors - 0.03% (3)
injury - 0.03% (3)
free - 0.03% (3)
rise - 0.03% (3)
negotiate - 0.03% (3)
questions - 0.03% (3)
coming - 0.03% (3)
done - 0.03% (3)
(the - 0.03% (3)
claims - 0.03% (3)
workshop - 0.03% (3)
studying. - 0.03% (3)
define - 0.03% (3)
email, - 0.03% (3)
john - 0.03% (3)
writings - 0.03% (3)
negotiations. - 0.03% (3)
signed - 0.03% (3)
advises - 0.03% (3)
alone - 0.03% (3)
show - 0.03% (3)
determining - 0.03% (3)
considered - 0.03% (3)
among - 0.03% (3)
entities - 0.03% (3)
means - 0.03% (3)
punish - 0.03% (3)
computer - 0.03% (3)
reversed - 0.03% (3)
employees, - 0.03% (3)
basis - 0.03% (3)
beyond - 0.03% (3)
relating - 0.03% (3)
longer - 0.03% (3)
fbor’s - 0.03% (3)
history - 0.03% (3)
access - 0.03% (3)
housing - 0.03% (3)
regarding - 0.03% (3)
i.e. - 0.03% (3)
accounts, - 0.03% (3)
pobr. - 0.03% (3)
produce - 0.03% (3)
agreed - 0.03% (3)
afford - 0.03% (3)
city.  - 0.03% (3)
people - 0.03% (3)
indefinitely - 0.03% (3)
public’s - 0.03% (3)
equipment - 0.03% (3)
key - 0.03% (3)
purposes - 0.03% (3)
employed - 0.03% (3)
220(b), - 0.03% (3)
 and - 0.03% (3)
corporation. - 0.03% (3)
incorporated - 0.03% (3)
gateway - 0.03% (3)
instead - 0.03% (3)
court, - 0.03% (3)
city, - 0.03% (3)
superior - 0.03% (3)
example, - 0.03% (3)
chiefs, - 0.03% (3)
third - 0.03% (3)
final - 0.03% (3)
violate - 0.03% (3)
meeting - 0.03% (3)
select - 0.03% (3)
board, - 0.03% (3)
brown - 0.03% (3)
“hours - 0.03% (3)
although - 0.03% (3)
factors - 0.03% (3)
towns - 0.03% (3)
twitter - 0.03% (3)
lisa - 0.03% (3)
waiting - 0.03% (3)
charbonneau - 0.03% (3)
cited - 0.03% (3)
operates - 0.03% (3)
specifically, - 0.03% (3)
numerous - 0.03% (3)
extend - 0.03% (3)
paul - 0.03% (3)
circumstances - 0.03% (3)
updating - 0.03% (3)
previously - 0.03% (3)
taking - 0.03% (3)
administrative - 0.03% (3)
past - 0.03% (3)
potential - 0.03% (3)
having - 0.03% (3)
clean - 0.03% (3)
attendance - 0.03% (3)
chaney - 0.03% (3)
melanie - 0.03% (3)
training, - 0.03% (3)
spring - 0.03% (3)
pra, - 0.03% (3)
document - 0.03% (3)
three - 0.03% (3)
reported - 0.03% (3)
appeal, - 0.03% (3)
vaudreuil - 0.03% (3)
sex, - 0.03% (3)
work” - 0.03% (3)
ethnicity. - 0.03% (3)
cannot - 0.03% (3)
salary - 0.03% (3)
additionally, - 0.03% (3)
suite - 0.03% (3)
street - 0.03% (3)
non-federal - 0.03% (3)
now - 0.03% (3)
discontinuation - 0.03% (3)
differentials - 0.03% (3)
long-standing - 0.03% (3)
1197.5 - 0.03% (3)
vpower - 0.03% (3)
skills - 0.03% (3)
stefanie - 0.03% (3)
so. - 0.03% (3)
comply - 0.03% (3)
allowing - 0.03% (3)
searches - 0.03% (3)
weeks - 0.03% (3)
employees’ - 0.03% (3)
obtain - 0.03% (3)
enforcement. - 0.03% (3)
healed - 0.03% (3)
accounts. - 0.03% (3)
sufficient - 0.03% (3)
attempt - 0.03% (3)
pra. - 0.03% (3)
jobs - 0.03% (3)
existing - 0.03% (3)
issued - 0.03% (3)
general - 0.03% (3)
lose - 0.03% (3)
thus, - 0.03% (3)
participating - 0.03% (3)
aspects - 0.03% (3)
schools, - 0.02% (2)
subscribe - 0.02% (2)
kunze - 0.02% (2)
litigation, - 0.02% (2)
posts - 0.02% (2)
fresno - 0.02% (2)
employer.  - 0.02% (2)
older - 0.02% (2)
schools. - 0.02% (2)
website - 0.02% (2)
fighters, - 0.02% (2)
interactive - 0.02% (2)
lewis - 0.02% (2)
310 - 0.02% (2)
requires - 0.02% (2)
complex - 0.02% (2)
diego - 0.02% (2)
francisco - 0.02% (2)
violating - 0.02% (2)
knothe - 0.02% (2)
certificate - 0.02% (2)
experience. - 0.02% (2)
experienced - 0.02% (2)
time, - 0.02% (2)
completion - 0.02% (2)
#lcwac17 - 0.02% (2)
organizations - 0.02% (2)
urban - 0.02% (2)
david - 0.02% (2)
family - 0.02% (2)
departments - 0.02% (2)
seven - 0.02% (2)
seminars - 0.02% (2)
cfra - 0.02% (2)
archives - 0.02% (2)
pension - 0.02% (2)
pertaining - 0.02% (2)
west - 0.02% (2)
military - 0.02% (2)
core - 0.02% (2)
short - 0.02% (2)
legislation - 0.02% (2)
fmla - 0.02% (2)
law. - 0.02% (2)
staffing - 0.02% (2)
floor - 0.02% (2)
stein-manes - 0.02% (2)
died - 0.02% (2)
irrelevant - 0.02% (2)
24-hour - 0.02% (2)
(pobr) - 0.02% (2)
intended - 0.02% (2)
advance - 0.02% (2)
described - 0.02% (2)
certification, - 0.02% (2)
raise, - 0.02% (2)
quite - 0.02% (2)
instructor, - 0.02% (2)
together - 0.02% (2)
enacted - 0.02% (2)
live - 0.02% (2)
certification. - 0.02% (2)
living - 0.02% (2)
responsibilities - 0.02% (2)
handlers, - 0.02% (2)
instructor.  - 0.02% (2)
subordinates - 0.02% (2)
changed - 0.02% (2)
pobr, - 0.02% (2)
attempts - 0.02% (2)
successfully - 0.02% (2)
“firefighter” - 0.02% (2)
competitive - 0.02% (2)
flsa.  - 0.02% (2)
c.f.r. - 0.02% (2)
[t]he - 0.02% (2)
accordingly, - 0.02% (2)
material - 0.02% (2)
performance - 0.02% (2)
concluded - 0.02% (2)
compensation. - 0.02% (2)
studying.  - 0.02% (2)
instruction - 0.02% (2)
compensated - 0.02% (2)
 in - 0.02% (2)
exams - 0.02% (2)
evaluating - 0.02% (2)
attending - 0.02% (2)
job.  - 0.02% (2)
true - 0.02% (2)
suffer - 0.02% (2)
officers, - 0.02% (2)
maintenance - 0.02% (2)
“peace - 0.02% (2)
strategy - 0.02% (2)
visit - 0.02% (2)
hearing - 0.02% (2)
emergency - 0.02% (2)
alleged - 0.02% (2)
duties.” - 0.02% (2)
serial - 0.02% (2)
clear. - 0.02% (2)
absence. - 0.02% (2)
investigations - 0.02% (2)
interrogations - 0.02% (2)
covered - 0.02% (2)
lcw’s - 0.02% (2)
advice - 0.02% (2)
action. - 0.02% (2)
opponents - 0.02% (2)
assist - 0.02% (2)
officers. - 0.02% (2)
steps - 0.02% (2)
orange - 0.02% (2)
assessment - 0.02% (2)
mirror - 0.02% (2)
constitutional - 0.02% (2)
program.  - 0.02% (2)
1975 - 0.02% (2)
officer” - 0.02% (2)
canines - 0.02% (2)
centers.  - 0.02% (2)
ultimately - 0.02% (2)
senate - 0.02% (2)
2007 - 0.02% (2)
“to - 0.02% (2)
assure - 0.02% (2)
graveyard - 0.02% (2)
1999 - 0.02% (2)
tedious - 0.02% (2)
time. - 0.02% (2)
polygraph - 0.02% (2)
customs - 0.02% (2)
290 - 0.02% (2)
introduced, - 0.02% (2)
abuse - 0.02% (2)
decided - 0.02% (2)
punishment - 0.02% (2)
failed - 0.02% (2)
interpreted - 0.02% (2)
idea - 0.02% (2)
"california - 0.02% (2)
corporations. - 0.02% (2)
opined - 0.02% (2)
jurisdiction. - 0.02% (2)
characteristic - 0.02% (2)
instead, - 0.02% (2)
evaluate - 0.02% (2)
code", - 0.02% (2)
funds - 0.02% (2)
table: - 0.02% (2)
relations, - 0.02% (2)
video - 0.02% (2)
monthly - 0.02% (2)
hope - 0.02% (2)
helpful - 0.02% (2)
acquire - 0.02% (2)
forcefully - 0.02% (2)
concerning - 0.02% (2)
203, - 0.02% (2)
community - 0.02% (2)
meaning - 0.02% (2)
context - 0.02% (2)
analyzing - 0.02% (2)
former - 0.02% (2)
pursuant - 0.02% (2)
list - 0.02% (2)
publicly - 0.02% (2)
characterize - 0.02% (2)
governed - 0.02% (2)
open - 0.02% (2)
applying - 0.02% (2)
function, - 0.02% (2)
cpra, - 0.02% (2)
officials, - 0.02% (2)
sent, - 0.02% (2)
johnson - 0.02% (2)
implicated - 0.02% (2)
agency.”  - 0.02% (2)
“prepared - 0.02% (2)
conducting - 0.02% (2)
location - 0.02% (2)
merely - 0.02% (2)
addressed - 0.02% (2)
simply - 0.02% (2)
content - 0.02% (2)
always - 0.02% (2)
concerned - 0.02% (2)
court’s - 0.02% (2)
future - 0.02% (2)
obtaining - 0.02% (2)
extensive - 0.02% (2)
retained - 0.02% (2)
(2) - 0.02% (2)
received, - 0.02% (2)
solely - 0.02% (2)
alison - 0.02% (2)
kalinski - 0.02% (2)
today - 0.02% (2)
emails - 0.02% (2)
texts - 0.02% (2)
servers - 0.02% (2)
requested - 0.02% (2)
“public - 0.02% (2)
since - 0.02% (2)
owned, - 0.02% (2)
used, - 0.02% (2)
account.  - 0.02% (2)
“the - 0.02% (2)
business” - 0.02% (2)
broadly - 0.02% (2)
conclusion - 0.02% (2)
statutes, - 0.02% (2)
noted - 0.02% (2)
limits - 0.02% (2)
six - 0.02% (2)
eligible - 0.02% (2)
filed - 0.02% (2)
makes - 0.02% (2)
discriminate - 0.02% (2)
disability.  - 0.02% (2)
coverage - 0.02% (2)
“any - 0.02% (2)
persons - 0.02% (2)
accommodation, - 0.02% (2)
here, - 0.02% (2)
“qualified - 0.02% (2)
functions - 0.02% (2)
stated - 0.02% (2)
basic - 0.02% (2)
revised - 0.02% (2)
control - 0.02% (2)
blogger - 0.02% (2)
useful - 0.02% (2)
challenges - 0.02% (2)
home - 0.02% (2)
resources - 0.02% (2)
published - 0.02% (2)
accommodating - 0.02% (2)
28, - 0.02% (2)
years.  - 0.02% (2)
issues, - 0.02% (2)
temporarily - 0.02% (2)
entered - 0.02% (2)
him - 0.02% (2)
(or - 0.02% (2)
policy, - 0.02% (2)
probationary - 0.02% (2)
requirement, - 0.02% (2)
argument - 0.02% (2)
harm - 0.02% (2)
county, - 0.02% (2)
wages, - 0.02% (2)
case-by-case - 0.02% (2)
they? - 0.02% (2)
generally - 0.02% (2)
indeed, - 0.02% (2)
sections - 0.02% (2)
corporation.” - 0.02% (2)
regulate - 0.02% (2)
throughout - 0.02% (2)
legislative - 0.02% (2)
intent - 0.02% (2)
fifth - 0.02% (2)
code, - 0.02% (2)
recover - 0.02% (2)
payment - 0.02% (2)
21, - 0.02% (2)
plaintiffs, - 0.02% (2)
reasons - 0.02% (2)
reasonably - 0.02% (2)
protects - 0.02% (2)
permanently - 0.02% (2)
disabled, - 0.02% (2)
facts - 0.02% (2)
disabilities - 0.02% (2)
stay - 0.02% (2)
yes! - 0.02% (2)
one, - 0.02% (2)
accommodations - 0.02% (2)
available - 0.02% (2)
angeles, - 0.02% (2)
corporation? - 0.02% (2)
maybe. - 0.02% (2)
matter? - 0.02% (2)
required. - 0.02% (2)
addition, - 0.02% (2)
vacation - 0.02% (2)
discipline, - 0.02% (2)
views - 0.02% (2)
theirs - 0.02% (2)
premises. - 0.02% (2)
public. - 0.02% (2)
practical - 0.02% (2)
reluctant - 0.02% (2)
unduly - 0.02% (2)
active” - 0.02% (2)
situations, - 0.02% (2)
cross - 0.02% (2)
arise. - 0.02% (2)
politics, - 0.02% (2)
know - 0.02% (2)
begin - 0.02% (2)
whose - 0.02% (2)
being - 0.02% (2)
say - 0.02% (2)
employment. - 0.02% (2)
nevertheless - 0.02% (2)
california, - 0.02% (2)
 labor - 0.02% (2)
conditions. - 0.02% (2)
stop - 0.02% (2)
terms - 0.02% (2)
involve - 0.02% (2)
name - 0.02% (2)
otherwise - 0.02% (2)
and/or - 0.02% (2)
(gov. - 0.02% (2)
“activity” - 0.02% (2)
needed - 0.02% (2)
opposing - 0.02% (2)
mou. - 0.02% (2)
both - 0.02% (2)
speaking - 0.02% (2)
process. - 0.02% (2)
early - 0.02% (2)
costing. - 0.02% (2)
understanding - 0.02% (2)
sets - 0.02% (2)
union - 0.02% (2)
analyzed - 0.02% (2)
share - 0.02% (2)
excel - 0.02% (2)
fact-finding - 0.02% (2)
component - 0.02% (2)
structure - 0.02% (2)
years, - 0.02% (2)
join - 0.02% (2)
pre-conference - 0.02% (2)
run - 0.02% (2)
systems - 0.02% (2)
 direct - 0.02% (2)
actually - 0.02% (2)
cash - 0.02% (2)
employee. - 0.02% (2)
necessarily - 0.02% (2)
leave. - 0.02% (2)
via - 0.02% (2)
time-consuming - 0.02% (2)
recommended - 0.02% (2)
budget - 0.02% (2)
spending. - 0.02% (2)
director, - 0.02% (2)
start - 0.02% (2)
frequently - 0.02% (2)
health - 0.02% (2)
 if - 0.02% (2)
 is - 0.02% (2)
applies - 0.02% (2)
might - 0.02% (2)
submit - 0.02% (2)
prohibits - 0.02% (2)
continues - 0.02% (2)
next - 0.02% (2)
becomes - 0.02% (2)
wage-gap - 0.02% (2)
amended - 0.02% (2)
ethnicity.  - 0.02% (2)
substantially - 0.02% (2)
adjusted - 0.02% (2)
considering - 0.02% (2)
prior - 0.02% (2)
race, - 0.02% (2)
system, - 0.02% (2)
quality - 0.02% (2)
vulnerable - 0.02% (2)
annually - 0.02% (2)
$15 - 0.02% (2)
type - 0.02% (2)
training. - 0.02% (2)
copy - 0.02% (2)
minimize - 0.02% (2)
burden - 0.02% (2)
cases, - 0.02% (2)
strong - 0.02% (2)
thorough - 0.02% (2)
risk - 0.02% (2)
examples - 0.02% (2)
cleaning - 0.02% (2)
reviewed - 0.02% (2)
updated - 0.02% (2)
implement - 0.02% (2)
reduce - 0.02% (2)
liability.  - 0.02% (2)
delete - 0.02% (2)
lawsuits. - 0.02% (2)
compensation, - 0.02% (2)
appropriate - 0.02% (2)
president’s - 0.02% (2)
major - 0.02% (2)
between - 0.02% (2)
importance - 0.02% (2)
disputes - 0.02% (2)
perhaps - 0.02% (2)
altercations - 0.02% (2)
permissible - 0.02% (2)
high - 0.02% (2)
limited - 0.02% (2)
impacts - 0.02% (2)
communicated - 0.02% (2)
all, - 0.02% (2)
 you - 0.02% (2)
civil - 0.02% (2)
remains - 0.02% (2)
educated - 0.02% (2)
least - 0.02% (2)
difficult - 0.02% (2)
policies? - 0.02% (2)
few - 0.02% (2)
easy - 0.02% (2)
rules.  - 0.02% (2)
left - 0.02% (2)
reference - 0.02% (2)
keep - 0.02% (2)
college - 0.02% (2)
why - 0.02% (2)
interpretation - 0.02% (2)
finally, - 0.02% (2)
mind - 0.02% (2)
negotiated - 0.02% (2)
employment, - 0.02% (2)
news - 0.02% (2)
sacramento - 0.02% (2)
of the - 0.66% (62)
in the - 0.47% (44)
to the - 0.4% (38)
the court - 0.27% (25)
municipal corporation - 0.25% (24)
at the - 0.24% (23)
and the - 0.24% (23)
or the - 0.23% (22)
the fbor - 0.23% (22)
on the - 0.23% (22)
the employee - 0.23% (22)
labor code - 0.22% (21)
the city - 0.18% (17)
the training - 0.18% (17)
that the - 0.18% (17)
for the - 0.17% (16)
the agency - 0.16% (15)
have a - 0.16% (15)
the employee’s - 0.15% (14)
that a - 0.15% (14)
an employee - 0.14% (13)
canine instructor - 0.14% (13)
the california - 0.14% (13)
by the - 0.13% (12)
under the - 0.13% (12)
held that - 0.12% (11)
the fire - 0.12% (11)
a public - 0.12% (11)
code sec - 0.12% (11)
and regulations - 0.11% (10)
your agency - 0.11% (10)
posted in - 0.11% (10)
labor relations - 0.11% (10)
able to - 0.11% (10)
plus comment - 0.11% (10)
were not - 0.11% (10)
the pra - 0.11% (10)
if the - 0.11% (10)
personnel rules - 0.11% (10)
the same - 0.11% (10)
from the - 0.11% (10)
liebert cassidy - 0.11% (10)
2017 posted - 0.11% (10)
the course - 0.11% (10)
as the - 0.11% (10)
tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus - 0.11% (10)
comment tags: - 0.11% (10)
public records - 0.1% (9)
subject to - 0.1% (9)
municipal corporations - 0.1% (9)
the pobr - 0.1% (9)
because the - 0.1% (9)
with the - 0.1% (9)
with a - 0.1% (9)
the public - 0.1% (9)
is not - 0.1% (9)
such as - 0.1% (9)
and in - 0.1% (9)
whether the - 0.1% (9)
direct costs - 0.1% (9)
recycle program - 0.1% (9)
the entity - 0.1% (9)
code section - 0.1% (9)
code 220(b) - 0.1% (9)
public business - 0.08% (8)
a municipal - 0.08% (8)
of absence - 0.08% (8)
canine handlers - 0.08% (8)
and to - 0.08% (8)
january 1, - 0.08% (8)
an employer - 0.08% (8)
the agency’s - 0.08% (8)
rules and - 0.08% (8)
court of - 0.08% (8)
the plaintiffs - 0.08% (8)
the recycle - 0.08% (8)
supreme court - 0.08% (8)
need to - 0.08% (8)
to determine - 0.08% (8)
public safety - 0.08% (8)
based on - 0.07% (7)
laws and - 0.07% (7)
under labor - 0.07% (7)
irrigation district - 0.07% (7)
of appeal - 0.07% (7)
public agencies - 0.07% (7)
was not - 0.07% (7)
of labor - 0.07% (7)
they are - 0.07% (7)
can be - 0.07% (7)
policies and - 0.07% (7)
there are - 0.07% (7)
to their - 0.07% (7)
to provide - 0.07% (7)
fire service - 0.07% (7)
out the - 0.07% (7)
are the - 0.07% (7)
the employer - 0.07% (7)
are not - 0.07% (7)
due process - 0.07% (7)
the firefighters - 0.06% (6)
city of - 0.06% (6)
should be - 0.06% (6)
certified canine - 0.06% (6)
a canine - 0.06% (6)
reasonable accommodation - 0.06% (6)
rights act - 0.06% (6)
minimum wage - 0.06% (6)
years of - 0.06% (6)
the fbor, - 0.06% (6)
in all - 0.06% (6)
per hour - 0.06% (6)
the table - 0.06% (6)
elected officials - 0.06% (6)
when the - 0.06% (6)
the work - 0.06% (6)
the supreme - 0.06% (6)
on february - 0.06% (6)
because they - 0.05% (5)
employees to - 0.05% (5)
training time - 0.05% (5)
training is - 0.05% (5)
police officers - 0.05% (5)
have an - 0.05% (5)
to public - 0.05% (5)
do not - 0.05% (5)
is that - 0.05% (5)
or ethnicity - 0.05% (5)
hour on - 0.05% (5)
on january - 0.05% (5)
employment law - 0.05% (5)
clients in - 0.05% (5)
outside of - 0.05% (5)
does the - 0.05% (5)
charter schools - 0.05% (5)
tips from - 0.05% (5)
working hours - 0.05% (5)
determine the - 0.05% (5)
the first - 0.05% (5)
that you - 0.05% (5)
participate in - 0.05% (5)
political activity - 0.05% (5)
leaves of - 0.05% (5)
canine instructors - 0.05% (5)
public agency - 0.05% (5)
rights and - 0.05% (5)
benefit corporation - 0.05% (5)
to work - 0.05% (5)
the rules - 0.05% (5)
lead to - 0.05% (5)
employees who - 0.05% (5)
for public - 0.05% (5)
california public - 0.05% (5)
they were - 0.05% (5)
until the - 0.05% (5)
recruit officer - 0.05% (5)
los angeles - 0.05% (5)
employment and - 0.05% (5)
employers should - 0.05% (5)
entitled to - 0.05% (5)
the academy - 0.05% (5)
where the - 0.05% (5)
plaintiffs were - 0.05% (5)
to make - 0.05% (5)
sure that - 0.05% (5)
does not - 0.05% (5)
situations where - 0.04% (4)
the city’s - 0.04% (4)
a court - 0.04% (4)
who are - 0.04% (4)
the fact - 0.04% (4)
only a - 0.04% (4)
in this - 0.04% (4)
found that - 0.04% (4)
procedural bill - 0.04% (4)
bill of - 0.04% (4)
san jose - 0.04% (4)
and has - 0.04% (4)
to pass - 0.04% (4)
appellate court - 0.04% (4)
are often - 0.04% (4)
in public - 0.04% (4)
fire service. - 0.04% (4)
post was - 0.04% (4)
a firefighter - 0.04% (4)
did not - 0.04% (4)
a good - 0.04% (4)
on march - 0.04% (4)
training was - 0.04% (4)
authored by - 0.04% (4)
of time - 0.04% (4)
this post - 0.04% (4)
required to - 0.04% (4)
it was - 0.04% (4)
more information - 0.04% (4)
employee is - 0.04% (4)
long-term leaves - 0.04% (4)
first amendment - 0.04% (4)
to become - 0.04% (4)
during the - 0.04% (4)
an essential - 0.04% (4)
and policies - 0.04% (4)
hours and - 0.04% (4)
all the - 0.04% (4)
order to - 0.04% (4)
you should - 0.04% (4)
the state - 0.04% (4)
continue to - 0.04% (4)
to participate - 0.04% (4)
failure to - 0.04% (4)
practice of - 0.04% (4)
of police - 0.04% (4)
training program - 0.04% (4)
agencies can - 0.04% (4)
while the - 0.04% (4)
safety of - 0.04% (4)
employee’s job. - 0.04% (4)
that they - 0.04% (4)
in political - 0.04% (4)
though the - 0.04% (4)
an employee’s - 0.04% (4)
recycle program, - 0.04% (4)
improve the - 0.04% (4)
political activities - 0.04% (4)
will be - 0.04% (4)
and can - 0.04% (4)
the right - 0.04% (4)
in their - 0.04% (4)
personal accounts - 0.04% (4)
use of - 0.04% (4)
public business, - 0.04% (4)
of rights - 0.04% (4)
compliance with - 0.04% (4)
private nonprofit - 0.04% (4)
water storage - 0.04% (4)
to labor - 0.04% (4)
whitmore clients - 0.04% (4)
is the - 0.04% (4)
for disability - 0.04% (4)
hours of - 0.04% (4)
“municipal corporation” - 0.04% (4)
employers in - 0.04% (4)
dealing with - 0.04% (4)
the term - 0.04% (4)
have you - 0.04% (4)
the labor - 0.04% (4)
may be - 0.04% (4)
in labor - 0.04% (4)
become a - 0.03% (3)
satisfy the - 0.03% (3)
to conduct - 0.03% (3)
are on - 0.03% (3)
work with - 0.03% (3)
duties as - 0.03% (3)
the pra. - 0.03% (3)
a certified - 0.03% (3)
workplace violence - 0.03% (3)
protected classification - 0.03% (3)
“hours of - 0.03% (3)
irrigation districts - 0.03% (3)
determine if - 0.03% (3)
behalf of - 0.03% (3)
comply with - 0.03% (3)
matter of - 0.03% (3)
district court - 0.03% (3)
as well - 0.03% (3)
approach to - 0.03% (3)
california labor - 0.03% (3)
the studying - 0.03% (3)
a leave - 0.03% (3)
variety of - 0.03% (3)
and even - 0.03% (3)
accounts for - 0.03% (3)
engaging in - 0.03% (3)
personal account. - 0.03% (3)
a matter - 0.03% (3)
purposes of - 0.03% (3)
to apply - 0.03% (3)
section 1197.5 - 0.03% (3)
remain in - 0.03% (3)
the applicable - 0.03% (3)
non-federal employers - 0.03% (3)
to return - 0.03% (3)
corporations under - 0.03% (3)
government code - 0.03% (3)
california employers - 0.03% (3)
section 220(b) - 0.03% (3)
to search - 0.03% (3)
counsel to - 0.03% (3)
of public - 0.03% (3)
her in - 0.03% (3)
on this - 0.03% (3)
and education - 0.03% (3)
disability laws - 0.03% (3)
the statute - 0.03% (3)
1, 2017, - 0.03% (3)
city was - 0.03% (3)
to ensure - 0.03% (3)
race or - 0.03% (3)
to employees - 0.03% (3)
new laws - 0.03% (3)
the following - 0.03% (3)
you are - 0.03% (3)
the course.  - 0.03% (3)
effective january - 0.03% (3)
state minimum - 0.03% (3)
in these - 0.03% (3)
the value - 0.03% (3)
that in - 0.03% (3)
in its - 0.03% (3)
the essential - 0.03% (3)
instructor certification - 0.03% (3)
and housing - 0.03% (3)
by any - 0.03% (3)
result in - 0.03% (3)
fair employment - 0.03% (3)
weeks ago - 0.03% (3)
essential areas - 0.03% (3)
over the - 0.03% (3)
your personnel - 0.03% (3)
policy that - 0.03% (3)
they have - 0.03% (3)
on behalf - 0.03% (3)
training to - 0.03% (3)
applicable regulation - 0.03% (3)
provides representation - 0.03% (3)
of work” - 0.03% (3)
the time - 0.03% (3)
determine whether - 0.03% (3)
also a - 0.03% (3)
pass the - 0.03% (3)
leave of - 0.03% (3)
your agency’s - 0.03% (3)
of “municipal - 0.03% (3)
the definition - 0.03% (3)
we have - 0.03% (3)
wage differentials - 0.03% (3)
not required - 0.03% (3)
handlers were - 0.03% (3)
make sure - 0.03% (3)
your rules - 0.03% (3)
directly related - 0.03% (3)
you have - 0.03% (3)
long-standing practice - 0.03% (3)
v. city - 0.03% (3)
what each - 0.03% (3)
the pobr. - 0.03% (3)
want to - 0.03% (3)
to remain - 0.03% (3)
learn more - 0.03% (3)
you will - 0.03% (3)
was introduced - 0.03% (3)
recruits to - 0.03% (3)
8, 2017 - 0.03% (3)
feha by - 0.03% (3)
employees from - 0.03% (3)
in determining - 0.03% (3)
fbor, fire - 0.03% (3)
essential government - 0.03% (3)
voluntary and - 0.03% (3)
for an - 0.03% (3)
to improve - 0.03% (3)
any of - 0.03% (3)
a long-standing - 0.03% (3)
that can - 0.03% (3)
that firefighters - 0.03% (3)
can the - 0.03% (3)
be able - 0.03% (3)
political discussion - 0.03% (3)
courts have - 0.03% (3)
are you - 0.03% (3)
school districts, - 0.03% (3)
storage districts - 0.03% (3)
are municipal - 0.03% (3)
not entitled - 0.03% (3)
by vpower - 0.03% (3)
a protected - 0.03% (3)
was authored - 0.03% (3)
and it - 0.03% (3)
its employee - 0.03% (3)
how to - 0.03% (3)
members of - 0.03% (3)
corporation under - 0.03% (3)
assembly bill - 0.03% (3)
into a - 0.03% (3)
you can - 0.03% (3)
rely on - 0.03% (3)
engage in - 0.03% (3)
brown act - 0.03% (3)
participating in - 0.03% (3)
require a - 0.03% (3)
in addition - 0.03% (3)
process rights - 0.03% (3)
the answer - 0.03% (3)
of costing - 0.03% (3)
code 220(b). - 0.03% (3)
labor and - 0.03% (3)
employers and - 0.03% (3)
border protection - 0.03% (3)
housing act - 0.03% (3)
conduct of - 0.03% (3)
can leave - 0.03% (3)
relating to - 0.03% (3)
the conduct - 0.03% (3)
management and - 0.03% (3)
disability retirement - 0.03% (3)
nonprofit benefit - 0.03% (3)
in some - 0.03% (3)
the public’s - 0.03% (3)
with this - 0.03% (3)
districts are - 0.03% (3)
no longer - 0.03% (3)
public’s business - 0.03% (3)
prepared by - 0.03% (3)
code 220(b), - 0.03% (3)
and employment - 0.03% (3)
and hour - 0.03% (3)
a personal - 0.03% (3)
firefighters procedural - 0.03% (3)
and border - 0.03% (3)
through the - 0.03% (3)
this blog - 0.03% (3)
of san - 0.03% (3)
on personal - 0.03% (3)
and all - 0.03% (3)
the workplace - 0.03% (3)
training for - 0.03% (3)
the culture - 0.03% (3)
definition of - 0.03% (3)
indirect costs - 0.03% (3)
rules can - 0.03% (3)
collective bargaining - 0.03% (3)
time penalties - 0.03% (3)
safety officers - 0.03% (3)
after the - 0.03% (3)
of appeal, - 0.03% (3)
on any - 0.03% (3)
a variety - 0.03% (3)
that are - 0.03% (3)
social media - 0.03% (3)
retirement on - 0.02% (2)
requires a - 0.02% (2)
or retaliation - 0.02% (2)
leave the - 0.02% (2)
when is - 0.02% (2)
and navigating - 0.02% (2)
of its - 0.02% (2)
or work - 0.02% (2)
on long-term - 0.02% (2)
employer request - 0.02% (2)
finance system - 0.02% (2)
the best - 0.02% (2)
as public - 0.02% (2)
your costing - 0.02% (2)
the fact-finding - 0.02% (2)
and training - 0.02% (2)
the real - 0.02% (2)
a value - 0.02% (2)
to have - 0.02% (2)
each item - 0.02% (2)
it the - 0.02% (2)
planning and - 0.02% (2)
base pay - 0.02% (2)
their training - 0.02% (2)
to pay - 0.02% (2)
including the - 0.02% (2)
question – - 0.02% (2)
the next - 0.02% (2)
elected officials, - 0.02% (2)
costing methodology - 0.02% (2)
actually spending. - 0.02% (2)
on what - 0.02% (2)
about the - 0.02% (2)
and costing - 0.02% (2)
and is - 0.02% (2)
they could - 0.02% (2)
viewed in - 0.02% (2)
ever, the - 0.02% (2)
or years - 0.02% (2)
until their - 0.02% (2)
leave and - 0.02% (2)
healed and - 0.02% (2)
protected under - 0.02% (2)
leave is - 0.02% (2)
must determine - 0.02% (2)
agency to - 0.02% (2)
can determine - 0.02% (2)
the most - 0.02% (2)
one of - 0.02% (2)
retirement blogger - 0.02% (2)
and employees - 0.02% (2)
leave management - 0.02% (2)
this program - 0.02% (2)
police recruits - 0.02% (2)
a part - 0.02% (2)
to learn - 0.02% (2)
a vacation - 0.02% (2)
steps to - 0.02% (2)
which provides - 0.02% (2)
ensure that - 0.02% (2)
bill 1411 - 0.02% (2)
firefighters and - 0.02% (2)
blogger on - 0.02% (2)
died in - 0.02% (2)
retirement this - 0.02% (2)
another example - 0.02% (2)
who were - 0.02% (2)
necessary to - 0.02% (2)
that could - 0.02% (2)
and conditions - 0.02% (2)
the senate - 0.02% (2)
ab 1411 - 0.02% (2)
“peace officer” - 0.02% (2)
afford the - 0.02% (2)
rights act. - 0.02% (2)
the effect - 0.02% (2)
if not - 0.02% (2)
and captains - 0.02% (2)
2, 2017 - 0.02% (2)
several years - 0.02% (2)
attempts to - 0.02% (2)
california court - 0.02% (2)
is quite - 0.02% (2)
fire chiefs - 0.02% (2)
show that - 0.02% (2)
or discipline - 0.02% (2)
procedures and - 0.02% (2)
while on - 0.02% (2)
officers do - 0.02% (2)
and they - 0.02% (2)
living situation - 0.02% (2)
although the - 0.02% (2)
introduced, the - 0.02% (2)
of feha - 0.02% (2)
ten years - 0.02% (2)
in employment - 0.02% (2)
employment blog - 0.02% (2)
labor & - 0.02% (2)
you ready - 0.02% (2)
3 weeks - 0.02% (2)
attending the - 0.02% (2)
the table: - 0.02% (2)
pertaining to - 0.02% (2)
all matters - 0.02% (2)
& employment - 0.02% (2)
and private - 0.02% (2)
education law - 0.02% (2)
and legal - 0.02% (2)
areas of - 0.02% (2)
matters pertaining - 0.02% (2)
special districts - 0.02% (2)
history of - 0.02% (2)
have analyzed - 0.02% (2)
support of - 0.02% (2)
fbor, the - 0.02% (2)
investigations and - 0.02% (2)
subject of - 0.02% (2)
through light-duty - 0.02% (2)
disabled employees - 0.02% (2)
which was - 0.02% (2)
aspects of - 0.02% (2)
fbor’s procedures - 0.02% (2)
in support - 0.02% (2)
and labor - 0.02% (2)
to this - 0.02% (2)
wage and - 0.02% (2)
of accommodating - 0.02% (2)
k. vaudreuil - 0.02% (2)
united states, - 0.02% (2)
under disability - 0.02% (2)
handlers are - 0.02% (2)
work as - 0.02% (2)
to light-duty - 0.02% (2)
to perform - 0.02% (2)
in light - 0.02% (2)
successfully complete - 0.02% (2)
and pay - 0.02% (2)
the canine - 0.02% (2)
as canine - 0.02% (2)
instructor at - 0.02% (2)
but also - 0.02% (2)
perform the - 0.02% (2)
officers and - 0.02% (2)
under a - 0.02% (2)
maintenance training - 0.02% (2)
entered the - 0.02% (2)
handler is - 0.02% (2)
by alison - 0.02% (2)
in developing - 0.02% (2)
proactive approach - 0.02% (2)
navigating the - 0.02% (2)
of absence. - 0.02% (2)
for more - 0.02% (2)
compensation for - 0.02% (2)
r. kalinski - 0.02% (2)
customs and - 0.02% (2)
the federal - 0.02% (2)
time spent - 0.02% (2)
its purpose - 0.02% (2)
their current - 0.02% (2)
v. united - 0.02% (2)
protection officers - 0.02% (2)
handlers must - 0.02% (2)
course, the - 0.02% (2)
almanza v. - 0.02% (2)
requiring compensation - 0.02% (2)
new skills - 0.02% (2)
employee with - 0.02% (2)
employee’s job.  - 0.02% (2)
should consider - 0.02% (2)
whether training - 0.02% (2)
is voluntary - 0.02% (2)
(b) and - 0.02% (2)
the almanza - 0.02% (2)
different than - 0.02% (2)
for non-federal - 0.02% (2)
attendance is - 0.02% (2)
be compensated - 0.02% (2)
provides that - 0.02% (2)
in california, - 0.02% (2)
time is - 0.02% (2)
are set - 0.02% (2)
recruit officers - 0.02% (2)
of their - 0.02% (2)
for time - 0.02% (2)
they spent - 0.02% (2)
this case - 0.02% (2)
what they - 0.02% (2)
spent training - 0.02% (2)
his or - 0.02% (2)
of california - 0.02% (2)
purpose of - 0.02% (2)
regular working - 0.02% (2)
the purpose - 0.02% (2)
not its - 0.02% (2)
was to - 0.02% (2)
not unreasonable - 0.02% (2)
the difference - 0.02% (2)
employers to - 0.02% (2)
process of - 0.02% (2)
or became - 0.02% (2)
the requested - 0.02% (2)
communications were - 0.02% (2)
not directly - 0.02% (2)
owned, used, - 0.02% (2)
permanently disabled, - 0.02% (2)
the subject - 0.02% (2)
a city - 0.02% (2)
solely on - 0.02% (2)
about public - 0.02% (2)
business are - 0.02% (2)
are sent, - 0.02% (2)
received, or - 0.02% (2)
stored in - 0.02% (2)
account.  the - 0.02% (2)
access to - 0.02% (2)
personal devices - 0.02% (2)
personal electronic - 0.02% (2)
which is - 0.02% (2)
california supreme - 0.02% (2)
sent, received, - 0.02% (2)
or stored - 0.02% (2)
employee’s personal - 0.02% (2)
or computer - 0.02% (2)
alison r. - 0.02% (2)
kalinski the - 0.02% (2)
reversed the - 0.02% (2)
communications from - 0.02% (2)
v. superior - 0.02% (2)
city employee - 0.02% (2)
concerning public - 0.02% (2)
electronic devices - 0.02% (2)
to produce - 0.02% (2)
from private - 0.02% (2)
devices using - 0.02% (2)
explained that - 0.02% (2)
used, or - 0.02% (2)
are public - 0.02% (2)
ability to - 0.02% (2)
this decision - 0.02% (2)
employees’ personal - 0.02% (2)
records from - 0.02% (2)
their own - 0.02% (2)
submit an - 0.02% (2)
the plaintiffs, - 0.02% (2)
personal accounts. - 0.02% (2)
– not - 0.02% (2)
a recruit - 0.02% (2)
burden on - 0.02% (2)
regarding the - 0.02% (2)
and officials - 0.02% (2)
would be - 0.02% (2)
all employees - 0.02% (2)
communications about - 0.02% (2)
reassignment to - 0.02% (2)
the record - 0.02% (2)
any state - 0.02% (2)
a writing - 0.02% (2)
or local - 0.02% (2)
stated that - 0.02% (2)
and as - 0.02% (2)
agency employees - 0.02% (2)
of law - 0.02% (2)
court explained - 0.02% (2)
is stored - 0.02% (2)
because it - 0.02% (2)
whether a - 0.02% (2)
public employees - 0.02% (2)
to only - 0.02% (2)
using their - 0.02% (2)
privacy concerns - 0.02% (2)
a reasonable - 0.02% (2)
from disclosure - 0.02% (2)
the focus - 0.02% (2)
even if - 0.02% (2)
program indefinitely - 0.02% (2)
agencies will - 0.02% (2)
public function - 0.02% (2)
that an - 0.02% (2)
maybe. does - 0.02% (2)
municipal corporation? - 0.02% (2)
for purposes - 0.02% (2)
los angeles, - 0.02% (2)
and water - 0.02% (2)
meaning of - 0.02% (2)
while no - 0.02% (2)
a private - 0.02% (2)
corporation that - 0.02% (2)
operates public - 0.02% (2)
pursuant to - 0.02% (2)
section 203, - 0.02% (2)
provided a - 0.02% (2)
to counties, - 0.02% (2)
court has - 0.02% (2)
it matter? - 0.02% (2)
reasonable accommodation, - 0.02% (2)
must be - 0.02% (2)
code do - 0.02% (2)
directly employed - 0.02% (2)
county, incorporated - 0.02% (2)
city, or - 0.02% (2)
a case-by-case - 0.02% (2)
agencies that - 0.02% (2)
counties, cities, - 0.02% (2)
is used - 0.02% (2)
found municipal - 0.02% (2)
for example, - 0.02% (2)
an irrigation - 0.02% (2)
district is - 0.02% (2)
compensation and - 0.02% (2)
employers are - 0.02% (2)
lisa s. - 0.02% (2)
have been - 0.02% (2)
and towns - 0.02% (2)
perform an - 0.02% (2)
your bargaining - 0.02% (2)
public benefit - 0.02% (2)
their public - 0.02% (2)
should not - 0.02% (2)
as municipal - 0.02% (2)
similar to - 0.02% (2)
the requirements - 0.02% (2)
be subject - 0.02% (2)
the program - 0.02% (2)
publicly elected - 0.02% (2)
table: dealing - 0.02% (2)
with elected - 0.02% (2)
vpower and - 0.02% (2)
officers to - 0.02% (2)
could return - 0.02% (2)
labor relations, - 0.02% (2)
until they - 0.02% (2)
benefit corporations - 0.02% (2)
became permanently - 0.02% (2)
have the - 0.02% (2)
within its - 0.02% (2)
power to - 0.02% (2)
to all - 0.02% (2)
factors to - 0.02% (2)
even though - 0.02% (2)
elected board, - 0.02% (2)
funds or - 0.02% (2)
acquire property - 0.02% (2)
incorporated city, - 0.02% (2)
are subject - 0.02% (2)
municipal corporations. - 0.02% (2)
that public - 0.02% (2)
entities are - 0.02% (2)
to waiting - 0.02% (2)
see also - 0.02% (2)
that operates - 0.02% (2)
public charter - 0.02% (2)
may not - 0.02% (2)
their employees - 0.02% (2)
cover the - 0.02% (2)
to define - 0.02% (2)
from engaging - 0.02% (2)
where a - 0.02% (2)
agencies to - 0.02% (2)
activities during - 0.02% (2)
and/or on - 0.02% (2)
in order - 0.02% (2)
in those - 0.02% (2)
while in - 0.02% (2)
limited to - 0.02% (2)
opposing a - 0.02% (2)
or opposing - 0.02% (2)
quality or - 0.02% (2)
light of - 0.02% (2)
supervisors should - 0.02% (2)
never give - 0.02% (2)
employers from - 0.02% (2)
employer can - 0.02% (2)
views are - 0.02% (2)
investigation and - 0.02% (2)
communicated to - 0.02% (2)
its employees - 0.02% (2)
that political - 0.02% (2)
interfere with - 0.02% (2)
could lead - 0.02% (2)
and could - 0.02% (2)
discrimination and - 0.02% (2)
the post - 0.02% (2)
or harassment - 0.02% (2)
for speaking - 0.02% (2)
speaking out - 0.02% (2)
against the - 0.02% (2)
a statutory - 0.02% (2)
free speech - 0.02% (2)
applies to - 0.02% (2)
whose political - 0.02% (2)
treatment to - 0.02% (2)
the fair - 0.02% (2)
direct costs. - 0.02% (2)
– what - 0.02% (2)
 it is - 0.02% (2)
important to - 0.02% (2)
of these - 0.02% (2)
costs are - 0.02% (2)
the department - 0.02% (2)
 direct costs - 0.02% (2)
the mou - 0.02% (2)
paid to - 0.02% (2)
a third - 0.02% (2)
an employee. - 0.02% (2)
others are - 0.02% (2)
the provision - 0.02% (2)
thus, in - 0.02% (2)
payment of - 0.02% (2)
total cost - 0.02% (2)
when we - 0.02% (2)
employees whose - 0.02% (2)
the public. - 0.02% (2)
political views - 0.02% (2)
during work - 0.02% (2)
hours and/or - 0.02% (2)
agency’s premises. - 0.02% (2)
all aspects - 0.02% (2)
employee in - 0.02% (2)
regulations should - 0.02% (2)
be reluctant - 0.02% (2)
labor agreements - 0.02% (2)
political discussions - 0.02% (2)
any other - 0.02% (2)
work done - 0.02% (2)
or which - 0.02% (2)
cross the - 0.02% (2)
21, 2017 - 0.02% (2)
that time - 0.02% (2)
in place - 0.02% (2)
get into - 0.02% (2)
on these - 0.02% (2)
prohibits employers - 0.02% (2)
changes to - 0.02% (2)
1197.5 was - 0.02% (2)
prohibit wage - 0.02% (2)
differentials based - 0.02% (2)
was amended - 0.02% (2)
or ethnicity.  - 0.02% (2)
a wage - 0.02% (2)
plan for - 0.02% (2)
than the - 0.02% (2)
substantially similar - 0.02% (2)
if they - 0.02% (2)
system, a - 0.02% (2)
or another - 0.02% (2)
race, or - 0.02% (2)
rules or - 0.02% (2)
years and - 0.02% (2)
were “qualified - 0.02% (2)
to identify - 0.02% (2)
best practices - 0.02% (2)
employees on - 0.02% (2)
tags: "california - 0.02% (2)
spring cleaning - 0.02% (2)
you reviewed - 0.02% (2)
to review - 0.02% (2)
them a - 0.02% (2)
updating your - 0.02% (2)
employment laws - 0.02% (2)
wage will - 0.02% (2)
cover all - 0.02% (2)
with new - 0.02% (2)
have previously - 0.02% (2)
reported on - 0.02% (2)
determining whether - 0.02% (2)
court stated - 0.02% (2)
not perform - 0.02% (2)
to compensation - 0.02% (2)
sex, race - 0.02% (2)
like a - 0.02% (2)
potential liability. - 0.02% (2)
and most - 0.02% (2)
violence and - 0.02% (2)
rules cover - 0.02% (2)
it can - 0.02% (2)
that is - 0.02% (2)
regular review - 0.02% (2)
or confusing - 0.02% (2)
even more - 0.02% (2)
have not - 0.02% (2)
– in - 0.02% (2)
limits the - 0.02% (2)
vulnerable to - 0.02% (2)
employer to - 0.02% (2)
to your - 0.02% (2)
election is - 0.02% (2)
devices or - 0.02% (2)
agency have - 0.02% (2)
agency vulnerable - 0.02% (2)
a regular - 0.02% (2)
to discrimination - 0.02% (2)
to show - 0.02% (2)
court found - 0.02% (2)
agencies must - 0.02% (2)
at least - 0.02% (2)
training and - 0.02% (2)
agency labor - 0.02% (2)
that your - 0.02% (2)
persons who - 0.02% (2)
in compliance - 0.02% (2)
most agency - 0.02% (2)
personnel rules.  - 0.02% (2)
of personnel - 0.02% (2)
two or - 0.02% (2)
but do - 0.02% (2)
with reasonable - 0.02% (2)
san diego - 0.02% (2)
2017 posted in - 0.11% (10)
liebert cassidy whitmore - 0.11% (10)
plus comment tags: - 0.11% (10)
tweetlikeemaillinkedingoogle plus comment - 0.11% (10)
labor code 220(b) - 0.1% (9)
a municipal corporation - 0.08% (8)
the recycle program - 0.08% (8)
under labor code - 0.07% (7)
labor code section - 0.06% (6)
the supreme court - 0.06% (6)
laws and regulations - 0.05% (5)
the fire service - 0.05% (5)
the training is - 0.05% (5)
from the table - 0.05% (5)
of the training - 0.05% (5)
a public record - 0.05% (5)
tips from the - 0.05% (5)
per hour on - 0.05% (5)
on january 1, - 0.05% (5)
hour on january - 0.05% (5)
the recycle program, - 0.04% (4)
certified canine instructor - 0.04% (4)
to the employee’s - 0.04% (4)
subject to the - 0.04% (4)
the employee’s job. - 0.04% (4)
the court of - 0.04% (4)
bill of rights - 0.04% (4)
years of the - 0.04% (4)
cassidy whitmore clients - 0.04% (4)
rules and regulations - 0.04% (4)
procedural bill of - 0.04% (4)
the training was - 0.04% (4)
january 1, 2017, - 0.03% (3)
are municipal corporations - 0.03% (3)
employers in california - 0.03% (3)
non-federal employers in - 0.03% (3)
it is important - 0.03% (3)
post was authored - 0.03% (3)
need to be - 0.03% (3)
posted in public - 0.03% (3)
long-term leaves of - 0.03% (3)
municipal corporations under - 0.03% (3)
fair employment and - 0.03% (3)
the firefighters procedural - 0.03% (3)
effective january 1, - 0.03% (3)
to become a - 0.03% (3)
of san jose - 0.03% (3)
of the fire - 0.03% (3)
state minimum wage - 0.03% (3)
rules and policies - 0.03% (3)
with the pra - 0.03% (3)
to work with - 0.03% (3)
to participate in - 0.03% (3)
relating to the - 0.03% (3)
on the agency’s - 0.03% (3)
the conduct of - 0.03% (3)
leave of absence - 0.03% (3)
on behalf of - 0.03% (3)
to pass the - 0.03% (3)
under the pra - 0.03% (3)
to determine whether - 0.03% (3)
they were not - 0.03% (3)
improve the employee’s - 0.03% (3)
“hours of work” - 0.03% (3)
water storage districts - 0.03% (3)
be able to - 0.03% (3)
court of appeal, - 0.03% (3)
due process rights - 0.03% (3)
each of the - 0.03% (3)
remain in the - 0.03% (3)
of labor code - 0.03% (3)
clients in a - 0.03% (3)
employment and housing - 0.03% (3)
was authored by - 0.03% (3)
the fire service. - 0.03% (3)
v. city of - 0.03% (3)
provides representation and - 0.03% (3)
to make sure - 0.03% (3)
nonprofit benefit corporation - 0.03% (3)
municipal corporation under - 0.03% (3)
to remain in - 0.03% (3)
long-standing practice of - 0.03% (3)
labor and employment - 0.03% (3)
the city was - 0.03% (3)
california labor code - 0.03% (3)
not a municipal - 0.03% (3)
corporation under labor - 0.03% (3)
not entitled to - 0.03% (3)
labor code 220(b), - 0.03% (3)
corporation? maybe. does - 0.02% (2)
for disability retirement - 0.02% (2)
leave the agency - 0.02% (2)
officers do not - 0.02% (2)
i a municipal - 0.02% (2)
all matters pertaining - 0.02% (2)
legal counsel to - 0.02% (2)
counsel to liebert - 0.02% (2)
proactive approach to - 0.02% (2)
representation and legal - 0.02% (2)
are on long-term - 0.02% (2)
for canine handlers - 0.02% (2)
steps to ensure - 0.02% (2)
employer request more - 0.02% (2)
and navigating the - 0.02% (2)
3 weeks ago - 0.02% (2)
of an employee. - 0.02% (2)
process of costing - 0.02% (2)
are actually spending. - 0.02% (2)
is important to - 0.02% (2)
can determine the - 0.02% (2)
what each item - 0.02% (2)
should be able - 0.02% (2)
public agency labor - 0.02% (2)
the ability to - 0.02% (2)
amount of time - 0.02% (2)
join us at - 0.02% (2)
or the employee’s - 0.02% (2)
who are on - 0.02% (2)
dealing with elected - 0.02% (2)
from the table: - 0.02% (2)
it matter? yes! - 0.02% (2)
the agency to - 0.02% (2)
that can be - 0.02% (2)
rights and obligations - 0.02% (2)
an employee is - 0.02% (2)
can the employer - 0.02% (2)
request more information - 0.02% (2)
and disability laws - 0.02% (2)
training to be - 0.02% (2)
for the course - 0.02% (2)
handlers were not - 0.02% (2)
the employee’s job.  - 0.02% (2)
the fbor, the - 0.02% (2)
attempts to pass - 0.02% (2)
whether training time - 0.02% (2)
outside of the - 0.02% (2)
such as those - 0.02% (2)
the almanza case - 0.02% (2)
of the pobr - 0.02% (2)
required to participate - 0.02% (2)
directly related to - 0.02% (2)
is to provide - 0.02% (2)
one of the - 0.02% (2)
even if the - 0.02% (2)
ten years of - 0.02% (2)
died in the - 0.02% (2)
of police officer - 0.02% (2)
as necessary to - 0.02% (2)
of a firefighter - 0.02% (2)
in political activity - 0.02% (2)
to the fire - 0.02% (2)
assembly bill 1411 - 0.02% (2)
history of the - 0.02% (2)
employee’s duties as - 0.02% (2)
found that the - 0.02% (2)
and border protection - 0.02% (2)
working hours and - 0.02% (2)
matters pertaining to - 0.02% (2)
certified canine handlers - 0.02% (2)
clients in all - 0.02% (2)
a certified canine - 0.02% (2)
school districts, public - 0.02% (2)
is quite different - 0.02% (2)
to this blog - 0.02% (2)
the course, the - 0.02% (2)
the handlers were - 0.02% (2)
time they spent - 0.02% (2)
duties as a - 0.02% (2)
process rights and - 0.02% (2)
compensation under the - 0.02% (2)
rights and protections - 0.02% (2)
in the training - 0.02% (2)
purpose of the - 0.02% (2)
training is to - 0.02% (2)
in support of - 0.02% (2)
while the court - 0.02% (2)
the fbor, fire - 0.02% (2)
10 years of - 0.02% (2)
california public agency - 0.02% (2)
race, or ethnicity. - 0.02% (2)
engage in political - 0.02% (2)
as municipal corporations. - 0.02% (2)
the meaning of - 0.02% (2)
purposes of labor - 0.02% (2)
that operates public - 0.02% (2)
to labor code - 0.02% (2)
essential government function - 0.02% (2)
the entity have - 0.02% (2)
court held that - 0.02% (2)
the brown act - 0.02% (2)
and the cpra, - 0.02% (2)
and the power - 0.02% (2)
funds or acquire - 0.02% (2)
within its geographical - 0.02% (2)
to waiting time - 0.02% (2)
that an irrigation - 0.02% (2)
code section 203, - 0.02% (2)
a private nonprofit - 0.02% (2)
benefit corporation that - 0.02% (2)
operates public charter - 0.02% (2)
entitled to waiting - 0.02% (2)
and while no - 0.02% (2)
found municipal corporations - 0.02% (2)
to the brown - 0.02% (2)
act and the - 0.02% (2)
raise funds or - 0.02% (2)
acquire property from - 0.02% (2)
public benefit corporations - 0.02% (2)
satisfy the requirements - 0.02% (2)
districts are municipal - 0.02% (2)
while no court - 0.02% (2)
labor relations, negotiations - 0.02% (2)
reassignment to the - 0.02% (2)
of a long-standing - 0.02% (2)
practice of accommodating - 0.02% (2)
disabled employees through - 0.02% (2)
light-duty may be - 0.02% (2)
retirement this post - 0.02% (2)
the city of - 0.02% (2)
recruit officers to - 0.02% (2)
in light of - 0.02% (2)
in all aspects - 0.02% (2)
the court found - 0.02% (2)
that they were - 0.02% (2)
the court stated - 0.02% (2)
not required to - 0.02% (2)
a reasonable accommodation - 0.02% (2)
an irrigation district - 0.02% (2)
court stated that - 0.02% (2)
to the recycle - 0.02% (2)
became permanently disabled, - 0.02% (2)
was not unreasonable - 0.02% (2)
or became permanently - 0.02% (2)
a municipal corporation? - 0.02% (2)
maybe. does it - 0.02% (2)
lisa s. charbonneau - 0.02% (2)
the answer is - 0.02% (2)
employers, the answer - 0.02% (2)
incorporated city, or - 0.02% (2)
agencies that are - 0.02% (2)
district court of - 0.02% (2)
table: dealing with - 0.02% (2)
public business are - 0.02% (2)
be reluctant to - 0.02% (2)
a regular review - 0.02% (2)
we have previously - 0.02% (2)
will continue to - 0.02% (2)
section 1197.5 was - 0.02% (2)
wage differentials based - 0.02% (2)
prohibit wage differentials - 0.02% (2)
labor & employment - 0.02% (2)
have you reviewed - 0.02% (2)
on an employee’s - 0.02% (2)
agency vulnerable to - 0.02% (2)
agency’s personnel rules - 0.02% (2)
workplace violence and - 0.02% (2)
the essential areas - 0.02% (2)
or confusing rules - 0.02% (2)
personnel rules can - 0.02% (2)
obsolete or confusing - 0.02% (2)
even though the - 0.02% (2)
prohibits employers from - 0.02% (2)
employees from engaging - 0.02% (2)
political activities during - 0.02% (2)
in order to - 0.02% (2)
all supervisors should - 0.02% (2)
employers and all - 0.02% (2)
to employees whose - 0.02% (2)
political views are - 0.02% (2)
employees whose political - 0.02% (2)
and/or on the - 0.02% (2)
of the public. - 0.02% (2)
employment laws and - 0.02% (2)
to only use - 0.02% (2)
are sent, received, - 0.02% (2)
the definition of - 0.02% (2)
an employee’s personal - 0.02% (2)
2, 2017 posted - 0.02% (2)
alison r. kalinski - 0.02% (2)
v. superior court - 0.02% (2)
a city employee - 0.02% (2)
concerning public business - 0.02% (2)
on a personal - 0.02% (2)
private devices using - 0.02% (2)
communications were not - 0.02% (2)
communications about public - 0.02% (2)
they are sent, - 0.02% (2)
received, or stored - 0.02% (2)
account.  the court - 0.02% (2)
to the conduct - 0.02% (2)
employees and officials - 0.02% (2)
of the public’s - 0.02% (2)
used, or retained - 0.02% (2)
by any state - 0.02% (2)
or local agency.”  - 0.02% (2)
there is no - 0.02% (2)
for public business, - 0.02% (2)
in determining whether - 0.02% (2)
public records from - 0.02% (2)
using their personal - 0.02% (2)
accounts for public - 0.02% (2)
comply with the - 0.02% (2)
as well as - 0.02% (2)
an order to - 0.02% (2)
& employment blog - 0.02% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.