Paul D. Knothe

Paul D. Knothe Associate

Paul Knothe is an associate in Liebert Cassidy Whitmore's Los Angeles office where he advises and represents public agency and private school clients in employment law, with an emphasis on public safety matters. Paul has extensive experience in handling employment litigation, grievance arbitrations, administrative hearings, and providing day-to-day legal counsel to the firm’s clients.

As a seasoned litigator, Paul has defended clients in state and federal courts, including appellate courts. He litigates the full range of employment and labor matters including alleged discrimination and retaliation, wage-hour issues, and issues surrounding collectively bargained Memoranda of Understanding. Paul has defended class-action and single- and multi-plaintiff employment matters.  He manages all aspects of litigation, from case assessment and pre-trial motion practice, through all forms of discovery proceedings, and settlement, to trial.

As a member of LCW’s Public Safety practice group, Paul is well versed in the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act and works on sensitive disciplinary issues and high-profile civil litigation cases regarding claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, off-duty misconduct, and excessive force issues. Paul advises public safety agencies on complex issues ranging from compliance with their obligations to disclose certain types of peace officer personnel records under SB 1421 and AB 748 to balancing their departmental policies with individual employees’ Constitutional and statutory rights where they come in conflict.   

Additionally, Paul regularly conducts thorough workplace investigations, with a focus on high-profile incidents or allegations against senior management personnel.

Paul regularly writes for LCW’s blog on how current legal trends affect LCW’s clients. He has also published several articles in leading legal publications in the areas of his expertise.

Prior to joining LCW, Paul practiced labor and employment law in both the private employment sectors, including for the California Department of Industrial Relations and U.S. Department of Labor.  Paul graduated cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center. 

Paul is admitted to the California, New York, and District of Columbia bars.

Education

  • JD, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

  • BA, University of Richmond, Virginia

Nov 5, 2018 Webinars on Demand
Managing Increased Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records after SB 1421 and AB 748

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Police Officers v. City (2015) - Prosecuted the termination appeals of multiple officers terminated in connection with an internationally renowned incident of excessive force resulting in the death of a citizen.

APPELLATE

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2015) - 234 Cal.App.4th 459 - Published Court of Appeal decision holding that deputy sheriffs' associations that were parties to five MOUs providing for individual arbitration of wage/hour disputes could not combine claims and proceed instead in court in an interest of "judicial efficiency."  This opinion arose out of the same matter as Los Angeles County v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission.

LITIGATION

Moreno et al v. City of Beverly Hills (2019) – LCW defended the City in a lawsuit brought by four employees of the City’s police department. The four plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to a number of different adverse employment actions that they contented were motivated by illegal discrimination and/or relation. Some of the plaintiffs also alleged they were subjected to illegal harassment. After a trial that lasted more than four weeks, the plaintiffs asked the jury to award them more than $20 million.  While the jury found some liability, the plaintiffs received just a fraction of the damages they claimed to have suffered. Paul drafted an argued a successful Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict which overturned the jury’s verdict as to one of the four plaintiffs, resulting in a defense judgment as to that plaintiff.

Doe v. Private School (2018) – Obtained dismissal of entire action following sustained demurrers to Plaintiff’s complaint and four amended complaints alleging negligence, breach of contract, and denial of due process where student-athlete withdrew from school after being required to attend classes remotely and prohibited from participating in football games during investigation of sexual assault allegation against him.

Munroe v. County of Riverside (2016) - Obtained summary judgment on claims on behalf of the County of Riverside in a lawsuit brought by a former Deputy County Counsel for violation of the California Equal Pay Act, FEHA gender discrimination and retaliation, discrimination for use of medical leave under the California Family Rights Act, and whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5.  The plaintiff alleged that her male counterpart was paid significantly more even though she had more experience and was performing comparable work and that her termination was retaliatory.  

Romero v. City of Barstow; City of Barstow v. Barstow Police Officers Association (2015) - Defeated a petition for writ of mandate and obtained an order confirming arbitration award where terminated police officer claimed that he was entitled to judicial review of binding arbitration award under the POBR and Constitutional due process.

Los Angeles County v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (2013) - Obtained a writ of mandate overturning the order of the Employee Relations Commission combining into one multi-class action approximately 10,000 wage-hour claims that were required to be brought individually under the terms of five Memoranda of Understanding between the Association and the County.

Education

  • JD, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

  • BA, University of Richmond, Virginia

Nov 5, 2018 Webinars on Demand
Managing Increased Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records after SB 1421 and AB 748
May 5, 2016

Ninth Circuit Clarifies Analysis of Reasonableness of Use of Force by Police

Law enforcement agencies’ policies, in accordance with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, uniformly require that force used by officers be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.  When considering disciplining an officer for violating a use of force policy, it is therefore critical to understand what the courts consider unreasonable.  This is a nuanced and fact-intensive analysis.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ April 1, 2016 decision in Lowry v. City of San Diego (although it did not arise in a disciplinary context) helps to clarify this inquiry.

Feb 16, 2016

Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died at the age of 79 on Saturday,...

Oct 16, 2015

Attorney General Issues Opinion Approving Brady List Procedures

On October 13, 2015, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris issued a Pu...

Education

  • JD, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC

  • BA, University of Richmond, Virginia

Nov 5, 2018 Webinars on Demand
Managing Increased Public Access to Peace Officer Personnel Records after SB 1421 and AB 748
Contact Us

General Inquiries

info@lcwlegal.com

Contact a Specific Office

Our Locations

Media Inquiries

Please contact Cynthia Weldon, Director of Marketing & Training, 800.981.2000.

close

back