LEARN
MORE

I. Emanuela Tala

Associate

619.481.5901 | etala@lcwlegal.com

Emanuela Tala is an Associate in Liebert Cassidy Whitmore’s San Diego office where she provides representation and legal counsel to clients in matters pertaining to employment law and litigation. She has defended employers in litigation claims for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour and other employment claims. Emanuela has successfully argued dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment.

Prior to joining Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Emanuela worked for a national insurance defense firm, where she specialized in the representation of entities and individuals in all aspects of labor and employment and professional liability. She also worked as an associate practicing business and contract litigation, municipal and public agency law, and ADA Accessibility defense, in addition to labor and employment defense. She earned her Juris Doctorate from Loyola Law School and her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, San Diego, where she graduated cum laude.

Recognitions

Emanuela has been honored as Best Lawyers’ Ones to Watch in 2024 in the area of Municipal Law.

Expertise

Public Employers

Education

JD, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

BA, University of California, San Diego

Did You Know

Emanuela has run the LA marathon 5 times (training for a 6th), about 10 half marathons, and her goal is to run a half marathon in all 50 states.

Representative Matters
Publications
Presentations

Litigation

K-9 Officer v. City (2026) – Persuaded the California Superior Court to dismiss a police officer’s claims for whistleblowing retaliation under the Labor Code and retaliation for complaining about discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Also convinced the Court that the officer failed to allege facts showing differential treatment, discriminatory motive, or harassment.

Todd Palombo v. City of Costa Mesa (2019) – A former firefighter brought claims against the City alleging he was not promoted to Captain due to his age. A prima facie case of age discrimination arises when the employee shows (1) at the time of the adverse action he or she was 40 years of age or older (2) an adverse employment action was taken against the employee, (3) at the time of the adverse action the employee was satisfactorily performing his or her job and (4) some other circumstance suggesting a discriminatory motive was present, such as replacement by a significantly younger worker with similar qualifications. Plaintiff argued that, because the testing process gave the Fire Chief discretion to promote the applicant he felt was best qualified from an eligibility list, it allowed the Fire Chief to discriminate against Plaintiff. However, LCW demonstrated that the City had legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for promoting individuals other than Plaintiff. In fact, a majority of the candidates selected during the contested time period were over the age of 40 and outscored Plaintiff on the promotional examination. Based on the foregoing, the Judge granted Motion Summary Judgement in favor of the City.

Administrative Hearings

Police Officer v. City (2024) – Won a civil service appeal as to an officer who was terminated after a DUI and hit and run arrest in a neighboring city.

Sheriff’s Deputy v. County (2023) – Convinced deputy to withdraw his grievance alleging claims to bonus pay.

United States v. California, et al. – California May Not Require Non-Uniformed Federal Law Enforcement Officers Operating in the State to Visibly Display Identification while Performing Federal Law Enforcement Duties

10/15/2026

LCW Special Bulletin

On February 9, 2026, the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied the United States’ request for a preliminary injunction preventing California from enforcing Section 10 of the No Vigilantes Act (Senate Bill 805 or “the Act”), which required non-uniformed...

READ NOW

Governor Newsom Signs the MELT ICE Act of 2026, Broadening the Basis for Peace Officer Disqualification, and Vetoes the GTFO Act

10/07/2026