Alison R. Kalinski

Police Officer v. City (2016) – Following a two-day hearing, a Personnel Appeals Board upheld the termination of a Police Officer for dishonesty and failing to properly investigate and report domestic violence. The Police Officer responded to a call for a battery and arrived on the scene to find evidence of domestic violence. The Officer, however, failed to follow Department policies and procedures and adequately investigate the domestic violence. At the hearing, the Officer admitted his investigation was deficient and he could have done a better job. Even more troubling, however, is that when the Officer was investigated for failing to properly investigate the domestic violence, he provided misleading and dishonest statements. While the Officer stated he did not notice visible signs of domestic violence on the night of the incident, the body camera video plainly shows that he noticed an injury on the victim that night. The Board upheld his termination for dishonesty.

Community College District v. Former Employee (2023) – Convinced the court to grant a three-year Workplace Violence Restraining Order, preventing a former employee from harassing and threatening three community college district employees. The judge found that although the former employee has a First Amendment right to threaten another with a legal claim, the vulgar and threatening portion of the former employee’s text messages had no legitimate purpose. This Restraining Order prohibits the former employee from contacting, approaching, or interacting with the three employees for three years.

Scott v. Azusa Pacific University, et. al (2019) – A former employee of the University’s Campus Safety Department brought claims of wage and hour violations, wrongful termination, sexual harassment, retaliation, emotional distress, and workplace violence against the University.  Plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to overtime for the time he spent socializing and going to the movies with the former Chief of the department, as well as for time he spent doing the Chief’s homework.  The firm obtained dismissal of the claim for sexual harassment on demurrer on the grounds that APU was exempt from the Fair Employment and Housing Act as a religious corporation.  The firm then initially obtained summary adjudication on all causes of action except the wage and hour claims.  On the wage and hour claims, the trial court found that while the employee was an exempt executive employee, a question of fact remained as to whether he was entitled to overtime compensation for the hours he was on-call, which the employee claimed was 24/7.  The firm sought a writ of mandate from the Court of Appeal on the basis that the employee was not entitled to any additional pay for on-call time once he was found to be exempt from overtime.  The Court of Appeal issued a coercive Palma notice to the trial court stating its intention to grant the peremptory writ of mandate.  In response, the trial court scheduled a further hearing and then granted summary judgment to APU in its entirety.

Special District v. Former Employee (2019) – In this case, one employee assaulted another employee, without provocation, at the Special District workplace. The employee who was attacked did not know why the other employee assaulted him. The Special District terminated the attacker-employee, but thereafter, other employees saw him in the parking lot and they were concerned.  The employee who was attacked feared he would be attacked again if he encountered the former-employee. Kalinski guided the employee’s testimony in court about the attack and his fears that it could re-occur.  In response, the court issued a permanent restraining order that keeps the attacker away from the employee and the worksite for three years.

Miller v. City of Los Angeles, et. al. (2015) – In a whistleblower retaliation federal lawsuit, the former Independent Assessor for the City of Los Angeles’s Fire Commission brought a lawsuit against the City and several individual defendants, alleging FEHA, § 1983, and Labor Code 1102.5 violations.  The firm obtained complete summary judgment on all causes of action on behalf of the City, the Mayor, all five Fire Commissioners, and a Mayoral employee.