Stefanie K. Vaudreuil

Firefighter/Paramedic v. City (2015) – Administrative law judge upheld the termination of two paramedic/firefighters who provided inadequate care to multiple patients.

Union v. City (2020) – The Union filed a grievance seeking to enforce a “fairness agreement” in the MOU. The Arbitrator dismissed the grievance because the Union failed to timely present it to the City.

Arbitrator Upholds Police Sergeant Termination (November 2016) – In a case involving similar allegations as the August 2016 case noted below, a sergeant was terminated for submitting false reports to the federal government, overtime abuse, and incompetence. The sergeant claimed to be conducting “investigations and surveillance” on overtime shifts that were paid for by a grant from the federal government. The enforcement grant required officers to engage in self-initiated enforcement activity or investigations but only if done in accordance with a department approved an operational plan. Officers working the overtime were required to submit daily activity reports to the federal government describing the activity conducted on the overtime shift. On a regular basis and for a significant period of time, the sergeant submitted false reports to the federal government regarding his alleged activity.

Arbitrator Upholds Police Sergeant Termination (August 2016) – A sergeant was terminated from his employment based upon findings that he engaged in overtime abuse and submitted false reports to the federal government. The sergeant was working overtime shifts that were paid for by a grant from the federal government to assist in certain federal law enforcement activity. The grant was an “enforcement grant,” which required the individual officers working the overtime shift to engage in self-initiated enforcement activity and backup regular shift officers only when necessary. Officers were then required to submit daily activity reports to the federal government, documenting what enforcement activity relevant to the grant they conducted during the shift. The reports were submitted by the officers directly to the federal government.

Western University of Health Care Sciences et al. (2015) – Plaintiff sued the University for alleged violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In June 2013, plaintiff was terminated from her employment due to poor performance. Subsequently, she filed the lawsuit alleging she was discriminated against because of a disability and race and harassed because of a disability. The University submitted a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, which was granted in its entirety by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The court determined that the University met its burden of proving it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating plaintiff’s employment and that plaintiff had no evidence to prove she was discriminated against or harassed. Judgment was entered in favor of the University.

South Pasadena Police Officers Assn. v. City of South Pasadena (2015) – California Court of Appeal upheld judgment in favor of the City upon labor unions’ petition for a writ of mandate to compel the City to revoke its change in contributions to retiree medical insurance. The Court found no violation of the U.S. or California Constitutions when, after exhausting meet and confer processes, the City unilaterally imposed a change in the City’s contribution to the retiree medical insurance for current employees. The Court held the MOU’s promise of retiree medical contributions was only binding until the expiration of the MOU. Employees who did not retire during the term of the MOU had no vested right to any level of City contributions to retiree medical after the MOU expired and another MOU entered into or an imposition of terms and conditions of employment after impasse.

McCurdy v. Western University of Health Care Sciences et al. (2015) – Plaintiff Jullie McCurdy sued the University for alleged violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). In June 2013, plaintiff was terminated from her employment due to poor performance. Subsequently, she filed the lawsuit alleging she was discriminated against because of a disability and race and harassed because of a disability. The University submitted a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, which was granted in its entirety by the Los Angeles County Superior Court. The court determined that the University met its burden of proving it had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating plaintiff’s employment and that plaintiff had no evidence to prove she was discriminated against or harassed. Judgment was entered in favor of the University.