The County of Los Angeles sought a workplace violence restraining order (WVRO) against Senior Mechanic Neill Francis Niblett after a series of escalating incidents when he angrily confronted management officials and an Assistant Fire Chief over employment decisions. In October 2022, Niblett yelled profanities at the Assistant Fire Chief, advanced to within inches of the Assistant Fire Chief’s face, and spit on him while shouting.
Several days later, Niblett told a secretary that if management did not “change things,” they would have “another situation as they had with Tatone.” That was a reference to a June 2021 incident in which one firefighter fatally shot another at a fire station. The County argued this statement constituted an implied credible threat of violence, particularly in light of: Niblett’s angry demeanor; his history of confrontational conduct toward management; and evidence that he owned firearms.
Multiple witnesses testified during the hearing in the trial court. The trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that Niblett’s reference to the prior shooting constituted a credible threat of violence under California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.8, and that there was a reasonable probability of future harm. The trial court issued a WVRO prohibiting Niblett from harassing or contacting the Assistant Fire Chief or entering the Assistant Fire Chief’s workplace. The WVRO also required Niblett to relinquish firearms and ammunition.
Niblett appealed. He argued that there was no evidence of an immediate threat or that he had any intent to harm. He claimed that his statement was protected speech related to union activity and workplace grievances. He said the WVRO violated his First and Second Amendment rights.
The California Court of Appeal rejected Niblett’s arguments. The Court held that a “credible threat of violence” under section 527.8 need not be explicit or immediate or supported by an intent to harm, but may be implied when the context shows a reasonable person would fear for their safety. The statute defines “credible threat of violence” as a knowing and willful statement or course of conduct that would place a reasonable person in fear for their safety, or the safety of their immediate family, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The Court concluded that speech that meets this definition is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court further held that the firearm prohibition was lawful and consistent with historical restrictions on those who were found to pose a credible threat to others.
County of Los Angeles v. Niblett, 116 Cal. App. 5th 454 (2025).