FIREFIGHTERS PROCEDURAL BILL OF RIGHTS

Transcription

1 July 2016 INDEX Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights...1 Back Pay...4 Appeals...4 LCW NEWS Tips from the Table...5 Super Lawyers and Rising Stars...6 Sacramento Office...7 LCW Webinar Recording...7 Public Safety Webinar...8 Firm Activities...9 Fire Watch is published monthly for the benefit of the clients of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. The information in Fire Watch should not be acted on without professional advice. Los Angeles Tel: San Francisco Tel: Fresno Tel: San Diego Tel: Sacramento Tel: Liebert Cassidy Whitmore lcwlegal.com/fire-watch FIREFIGHTERS PROCEDURAL BILL OF RIGHTS Firefighter Engaged in Performance of Duties When Alleged Misconduct Occurred Was Entitled to FBOR Rights. The Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act ( FBOR ; Government Code sections ) requires a fire department to provide a non-probationary firefighter with opportunity for an administrative appeal when taking punitive action. FBOR provides that the appeal must be heard in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act section governing adjudicatory hearings, which includes a requirement that the hearing be conducted by a state Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) unless a governing memorandum of understanding provides for binding arbitration. Grant Siebert worked as a firefighter/paramedic for the San Jose Fire Department. On Thanksgiving Day 2008, a female high school student, N.C., brought a cookie pie to the firefighters working at Station 28. Seibert gave N.C., who was 16 at the time, a tour of the station and then took a photo of her next to a fire engine. He got her address so he could send her the photo. N.C. visited the station again a few weeks later. After leaving the station, N.C. ed Seibert to inform him that she had injured her elbow while at the station that day. That began an exchange of increasingly risqué and suggestive s between Seibert and N.C. N.C. s father discovered she was exchanging s with Seibert and took a printed copy of the s to the fire station. He spoke to the Battalion Chief and asked him to remove Seibert from duty. The Department then moved Seibert to the Department s training center with fellow firefighter Leah Fazio. Fazio later alleged that Seibert had touched her in an unwelcome manner and had made multiple inappropriate remarks to her. The City s Office of Employee Relations retained an attorney to investigate the allegations against Seibert. The investigator did not interview N.C., but instead relied on a summary of a recorded interview of her conducted by the police. The investigator found that Seibert had exchanged s with N.C., but that the evidence was inconclusive whether Seibert knew N.C. was a minor. The investigator also found that Seibert had not used City-owned computers to communicate with N.C., but that the exchanges had occurred while Seibert was on duty. The investigator determined that Seibert had made statements which called his credibility into question, was evasive during interviews, was dishonest, and that he had violated the City s discrimination and harassment policy. Siebert was terminated as a result of the investigator s findings. Seibert s counsel wrote the City Manager requesting arbitration and wrote to the Civil Service Commission requesting to appeal the discipline. The Commission heard the appeal and sustained Seibert s termination. lcwlegal.com flsaaudit.com

2 2 Fire Watch Seibert filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate alleging: (1) the Commission lacked jurisdiction because the City failed to file the notice of discipline on time; (2) the Commission failed to provide a fair hearing; and (3) the Commission abused its discretion. The Court issued a peremptory writ directing the City to set aside Seibert s termination and to reconsider the actions in light of the court s finding that there was insufficient evidence to establish the charges against Seibert. The City appealed and Seibert cross-appealed. On appeal, the Court analyzed the specific allegations against Seibert. The Court held the trial court correctly concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish that Seibert s s violated any City policies. However, the trial court had excluded transcripts of Fazio s testimony in the Commission hearing on the basis of hearsay. The Court determined that the trial court made a prejudicial error by refusing to consider Fazio s transcript testimony. The Court reversed the trial court s decision on that basis. Seibert alleged that reconsideration of the Commission s decision must be governed by the FBOR, and that it must be heard by an ALJ or by a neutral arbitrator. The City argued that the charges at issue fell outside the FBOR because of section 3262, which provides that FBOR rights only apply to a firefighter during events involving the performance of official duties. The City alleged that Seibert s actions were not within the scope of his responsibilities. The Court determined that the proper inquiry was whether the firefighter was engaged in the performance of duties when the misconduct allegedly occurred. Seibert s alleged conduct with Fazio occurred at work and during working hours, so therefore those charges fell under FBOR. The Court declined to decide whether the allegations regarding Seibert s conduct with N.C. fell within the FBOR s reach since it was clear that Fazio s charges were covered by FBOR. The Court held that, since some of the charges fell under FBOR, all of the charges must be resolved in accordance with the FBOR. Finally, the Court determined that Seibert did not have a right to binding arbitration because he did not invoke the provisions of FBOR. Seibert s counsel had previously requested arbitration, but Seibert had failed to comply with the MOU requirement that he provide documentation showing that the union had agreed to binding arbitration. The FBOR intends to preserve a firefighter s right to binding arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement and is an exception to the rule that all administrative appeals must be heard by an ALJ. Since the union s agreement was a contractual condition to binding arbitration, and Seibert had failed to get the union s agreement, the exception was not triggered and the ALJ must hear the further administrative proceedings. Seibert v. City of San Jose (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th NOTE: The Court specifically noted that firefighters are not automatically entitled to binding arbitration of any disciplinary charge subject to the FBOR just because a firefighter s employment is governed by an MOU with a binding arbitration provision. The MOU itself must provide for binding arbitration of administrative appeals. This rule would not apply to cases under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights. Although similar to the FBOR, Government Code section only requires the administrative appeal be conducted in conformance with rules adopted by the agency. FLSA Cash in Lieu Must be Included in the Regular Rate for Overtime Purposes under the FLSA. The City of San Gabriel provided a Flexible Benefits Plan to employees by which a designated monetary amount was furnished to each employee for the purchase of medical, vision, and dental benefits. Although employees were required to use the Plan s funds to purchase vision and dental, they could decline the purchase of medical benefits upon proof of alternate medical coverage. An employee that elected to forgo medical benefits received the unused portion of the designated monetary amount as a cash payment added as a separate line item in the employee s regular paycheck. This cash payment was referred to as cash in lieu. Of the total amount the City paid on behalf of its employees pursuant to the Flexible Benefits Plan, between 42% and 47% of that amount was paid directly to employees as cash in lieu each year. Between 2009 and 2012, the monthly payment paid to employees who declined medical coverage was roughly $1,000 to $1,300. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, overtime hours must be compensated at a rate that is at least one-anda-half times the employee s hourly regular rate.

3 July The FLSA regular rate is the hourly rate equivalent to what the employee is actually paid per hour for the normal, non-overtime workweek for which s/ he is employed. Generally speaking, all forms of remuneration or compensation for employment paid to an employee must be included in calculating the regular rate except for certain specifically excluded payments. Since enacting the Flexible Benefits Plan many years earlier, the City treated the cash in lieu payments as benefits, not compensation, and excluded the payments from employees regular rate of pay. This meant the cash in lieu payments were not incorporated into the City s calculation of employees FLSA overtime rates. A small group of City police officers brought suit, alleging the cash in lieu payments were compensation for hours worked that must be included in the City s regular rate calculation for overtime payments. The officers also alleged that the City had failed to establish a partial overtime exemption for law enforcement (known as the 207(k) work period), and that the City s failure to include the cash in lieu payments was willful, entitling them to three years of back pay. The officers also sought liquidated damages (i.e., double damages, the statutorily imposed penalty for FLSA violations). The trial court found that the City s cash in lieu benefits were not properly excluded from its calculation of the regular rate of pay. Thereafter, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the cash payments to employees in lieu of health benefits must be included in determining the hourly regular rate used to compensate employees for FLSA overtime. In its defense, the City argued that the cash in lieu payments were not made as compensation for hours of employment and were not tied to the amount of work performed for the employer, and therefore were excludable from the regular rate of pay as are payments for leave used and expenses. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the payments were compensation for work even if the payments were not specifically tied to time worked. The Court of Appeals also held that the cash in lieu payments could not be excluded from the regular rate as payments made irrevocably to a third party pursuant to a bona fide benefit plan for health insurance, retirement or similar benefits pursuant to FLSA section 207(e)(4) since those payments were paid out directly to employees. Thus, the Ninth Circuit held that cash in lieu payments must be added into the employee s regular rate of pay for the time periods they cover for purposes of determining the employee s FLSA overtime rate. The DOL regulations provide that, to be bona fide, a benefits plan can only pay out an incidental amount as cash. (29 C.F.R ) In 2003, the DOL issued an opinion letter that defined cash in lieu benefits as incidental if they amount to no more than 20% of the employer s total contribution to the benefit plan. The Court of Appeals rejected the DOL s 20% rule as unpersuasive, but nevertheless held that the City s cash in lieu payments to employees were not incidental as they amounted to too great a percentage of the City s total benefits contribution (42-47%). Since the cash in lieu payments were not incidental, the plan could not qualify as bona fide under section Therefore, the City was required to include all amounts paid into the flexible benefits plan for employees in their regular rate of pay, not just the cash in lieu payments, including those paid to insurance companies as benefit premiums. The Court acknowledged that this decision could lead employers to discontinue cash in lieu plans, but stated that this is a policy decision for Congress or the DOL not the courts to address. Flores v. City of San Gabriel (2016) F.3d [2016 WL ]. NOTE: A more detailed version of this article authored by Lisa Charbonneau was published as a June 3, 2016, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Special Bulletin. If your agency offers cash in lieu payments, you should analyze your arrangements to determine how this decision will impact your benefit arrangements and develop a procedure to remedy any issues moving forward. We understand lawsuits have already been filed against a number of local agencies alleging incorrect calculation of the FLSA regular rate. These lawsuits may be premature, however, given that the City of San Gabriel has filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is presently considering whether to grant the City s petition. We recommend that you consult with your agency s legal counsel before making decisions on these issues.

4 4 Fire Watch BACK PAY Judith Islas and Joshua Goodman successfully represented a fire district in a contract grievance arbitration claiming an employee was entitled to an award of education pay back to her 2007 hire date. The applicable contract provision allowed the Fire Chief to authorize education pay upon ascertaining that the employee holds a post-secondary degree in a job related field. In denying the grievance, the Arbitrator rejected the employee s argument that, because her job application listed her degree, the District should have automatically awarded her education pay from the date of hire. The Arbitrator agreed with the District that, to qualify for education pay, the employee had to initiate a request and obtain the Chief s determination that the degree was job related. APPEALS Resignation from Employment Does Not Divest Civil Service Commission of Jurisdiction to Hear Appeal. James Weisner was a heavy equipment mechanic at the Santa Cruz County Buena Vista Landfill. The County terminated Weisner for using County equipment and employees for his personal purposes. Weisner appealed his dismissal to the County Civil Service Commission which found just cause for his termination. Weisner filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus seeking to set aside his termination. The trial court granted the writ petition and the County appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed. After a second hearing, the Commission again upheld Weisner s termination. Weisner filed a new writ petition asking the Court to set aside the Commission s decision. The Court granted the writ petition and ordered the Commission to conduct a hearing limited to the charges of unauthorized use of public equipment and engaging in personal business on County time. The Commission then held another hearing and found that Weisner had engaged in the alleged misconduct. The Commission also found that termination was not warranted because the County had failed to use progressive discipline as it was Weisner s first offense. The Commission reinstated Weisner but without back pay or credit towards seniority, County service or compensation for other County benefits. Weisner then returned to County employment as a heavy equipment mechanic. One month later, he approached his supervisor and alleged that the terms of his reinstatement had been violated. He also told his supervisor that his attorney had advised him to leave the workplace and not return. He did not report to work on the next two days. On the third day, Weisner told the Personnel Director he was resigning and would provide a letter of resignation. Weisner never provided the resignation letter so the Personnel Director sent Weisner a letter stating he was accepting Weisner s verbal resignation. The trial court denied Weisner s writ petition as moot on the basis that the Commission had lost jurisdiction over Weisner s appeal proceeding when Weisner resigned. Weisner then appealed. The Court of Appeal analyzed the County s civil service and personnel rules to determine whether the Commission had in fact lost jurisdiction when Weisner resigned. The personnel rules provide that affected applicants or employees could appeal decisions of the Personnel Director. The rules require filing of an appeal form. The rules give employees seven days to appeal a dismissal. Employees may appeal dismissals to the Commission. It was undisputed that the Commission initially had jurisdiction to hear Weisner s appeal when he was first terminated. The Court found nothing in the rules which indicated that resignation, which had occurred while the writ petition was pending, would divest the Commission of its existing jurisdiction. The Court rejected the County s argument that use of the word employee in the County rules meant the Commission only had jurisdiction over current employees. The Court noted that those provisions also use the word appellant, which does not have a connotation of current employment. Since the rules did not have any provision specifically divesting the Commission of jurisdiction after an employee s resignation, the Court held that Weisner s resignation had not deprived the Commission of jurisdiction to grant him relief. The Court of Appeal held that the Superior Court had erred in concluding that Weisner s writ petition was moot.

5 July Weisner v. Santa Cruz County Civil Service Commission (2016) Cal.App.4th [2016 WL ] NOTE: This case is similar to Hughes v. County of San Bernardino (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 542, which we discussed in our April 2016 Fire Watch. The Weisner court analyzed Hughes and determined that its holding was applicable to Weisner. Without provisions depriving the Commission of jurisdiction, an employee s resignation would not divest the Commission of jurisdiction over a disciplinary appeal. Tips from the Table We are excited to continue our new video series Tips from the Table. In these monthly videos, members of LCW s Labor Relations and Negotiations Services practice group will provide various tips that can be implemented at your bargaining tables. We hope that you will find these clips informative and helpful in your negotiations. To watch these videos, visit our blog: Fire Watch, is available via . If you would like to be added to the distribution list or If you know someone who would benefit from this publication, please visit Please note: By adding your name to the distribution list, you will no longer receive a hard copy of Fire Watch. If you have any questions, call Caitlin Martin at

6 6 Fire Watch Seven LCW Attorneys Selected to the 2016 Northern California Super Lawyers and Rising Stars Super Lawyers Rising Stars Shelline Bennett, the Managing Partner of the Firms Fresno office, has been selected to this list for her work in employment & labor law for eleventh time. Shelline has represented management in labor and employment law matters for over 20 years. She has worked with both private and public employers, including cities, counties, special districts, housing authorities, community colleges, and nonprofit organizations. This is the seventh time that Richard Bolanos has been selected to Northern California Super Lawyers. Rick has an exclusive practice representing California cities, counties and special districts in labor relations, negotiations, representation in disciplinary proceedings, arbitration of grievances, investigations, mediations, fact-finding hearings and specialized representation in investigation of employee discipline, harassment and discrimination matters. Gage Dungy, Partner in the Sacramento office of LCW, has been selected to this list for seventh consecutive year. Gage provides management-side representation and legal counsel to clients in all matters pertaining to labor and employment law throughout the State of California. This includes both private sector and public sector employers, including cities, counties, and special districts, hospitals, businesses, and packing houses, among others. This is the first time that Joy Chen has been selected to Northern California Rising Stars. As an attorney in the Firm s San Francisco office, Joy provides advice and counsel to clients in issues pertaining to labor, employment law, and litigation. She defends employers against claims off wrongful termination and discrimination and advises on issues such as hiring, firing, discipline, and disability/medical leave. Lisa S. Charbonneau, an attorney in the Firm s San Francisco office, has been selected to this list for the fifth consecutive time. Lisa represents and advises Liebert Cassidy Whitmore clients in all matters pertaining to labor and employment law. She represents clients in employment litigation throughout the state and advises clients on issues ranging from state and federal wage and hour law compliance to the interactive process to the mandates of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act. This is the fourth consecutive year that Che Johnson, attorney in the Fresno office of LCW, has been selected to this list. Che counsels and represents clients in all aspects of labor relations and employment law including complex negotiations and collective bargaining issues, wage and hour disputes, employee discipline, claims of discrimination and harassment. Juliana Kresse, attorney in the Firm s San Francisco office, has been selected to this list for the fourth consecutive year. Juliana provides representation to the firms clients in employment and education law. She has represented clients in California State and Federal courts and is well versed in all aspects of the litigation process including taking depositions, drafting motions, and preparing witnesses for trial. Liebert Cassidy Whitmore congratulates them for being honored in their work! Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

7 July New Sacramento Office! Our Sacramento office has moved! Please note our new address and contact infomation: Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1260 Sacramento, CA Office: Fax: LCW Webinar Recording Flores v. City of San Gabriel FLSA Impacts to Employers The impacts of the recent Ninth Circuit decision in Flores v. City of San Gabriel case are important for all employers to understand. If your agency provides cash payments to employees who opt-out of a health insurance plan, your agency should carefully evaluate the impact of Flores on payroll practices and FLSA liability. This decision requires the cash in lieu amount and potentially all plan benefits contributions by employers to be included in employees regular rate of pay for FLSA overtime purposes. Understanding the primary holdings in Flores regarding cash payments, bonafide health plans, and willful violations tied to the statute of limitations is critical and reiterates the importance of conducting and documenting regular reviews of all aspects of FLSA compliance for your agency. The webinar will provide a more thorough discussion on the elements of this case and the potential impacts to employers. We will share the status of the Petition for Rehearing and what you should consider as next steps. The video segment below gives a high level overview of the case. Who Should Attend? Human Resources/Personnel Department Heads, Finance Managers, Payroll Administrators and Agency Labor Negotiators Workshop Fee: Consortium Members: $60, Non-Members: $85 Presented by: Jennifer Palagi NOTE: This webinar is sold out but the recording will be made available for viewing to those that register at the link below. Lisa Charbonneau

8 8 Fire Watch lcw webinars Critical Updates for Public Safety Command Staff Critical Issues in Discipline Appeal Hearings: Ensure Terminated Safety Employees Stay Terminated Presented by: Morin Jacobs & James Oldendorph Jr. August 10th 10-11am This webinar will involve a comprehensive review of critical issues that can arise during the discipline process that can make or break a discipline case. From pre-hearing discovery, exchange of witness lists, subpoenas, and pre-hearing motions to practical aspects of the hearing itself, witness testimony, closing briefs and further appeals, our presenters will discuss the latest cases and statutes and provide practical tips to help ensure that terminated safety employees stay terminated. Who Should Attend? Police Sergeants, Sheriffs, Public Safety Command Staff, Fire Captains, Fire Safety Command Staff, HR Professionals and Risk Managers To learn more, please visit:

9 July Management Training Workshops Firm Activities Customized Training July 5,19 July 18 July 19 July 19 July 19 July 20 July 20 July 21,27 July 22 July 26,27 July 27 Aug. 2 Aug. 2 Aug. 2 Aug. 4 Aug. 9 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 10 Aug. 17 Workplace Conduct Zone 7 Water Agency Livermore Kelly Tuffo City of Fresno Shelline Bennett FBOR Battalion Chief Academy Pasadena Jennifer Rosner Difficult Conversations and Employee Due Process Rights & Skelly : A Guide to Implementing Public Employee Discipline City of Ontario T. Oliver Yee Town of Los Altos Hills Juliana Kresse Fire Chiefs Executive Briefing: Critical Tools for Managing Staff and Avoiding Legal Pitfalls in the Fire Service Ross Valley Fire Department San Anselmo Lisa S. Charbonneau Prevention of Sexual Harassment USDA Forest Service Sonora Jack Hughes City of Walnut Creek Jack Hughes City of Kingsburg Fresno Che I. Johnson Equal Opportunity and Non-Discrimination/Diversity Training Monterey County Equal Opportunity Office Salinas Shelline Bennett City of Hayward Erin Kunze Preventing Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in the Academic Setting/Environment Barstow Community College District Barstow Lee T. Patajo Performance Management: Evaluation, Documentation and Discipline City of Ontario Shardé C. Thomas FLSA County of Los Angeles Webinar Elizabeth Tom Arce 12 Steps To Avoiding Liability Los Angeles County District Attorney Bureau of Investigations Los Angeles J. Scott Tiedemann City of Livingston Che I. Johnson City of Fresno Che I. Johnson Transgender Issues City of South Pasadena T. Oliver Yee Faculty Discipline/Evaluations Ohlone College Fremont Eileen O Hare-Anderson POBR and Principles for Public Safety City of Santa Maria Che I. Johnson

10 10 Fire Watch Aug. 17 Aug. 18 Aug. 18 Aug. 19 Aug. 23 Aug. 23 Aug. 23 Aug. 24 Aug. 24 Aug. 25 Aug. 25 Aug. 25 Aug. 30 Aug. 30 Aug. 31 Aug. 31 Aug. 31 FLSA Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA) Los Angeles Elizabeth Tom Arce Title IX Cero Coso Community College Ridgecrest Eileen O Hare-Anderson MOU s, Leaves and Accommodations City of Santa Monica Laura Kalty Title IX Porterville College Porterville Eileen O Hare-Anderson Preventing Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in the Private and Independent School Environment French American School Sunnyvale Grace Chan Preventing Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in the Independent School Environment/Setting New Roads School Santa Monica Michael Blacher Preventing Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in the Private and Independent School Environment Park Century School Culver City Michael Blacher Supervisory Responsibilities UCLA Police Department Los Angeles J. Scott Tiedemann Preventing Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in the School Setting/Environment Vistamar School El Segundo Michael Blacher Preventing Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation in the Private and Independent School Environment Chandler School Pasadena Michael Blacher Performance Evaluations Mendocino County Ukiah Jack Hughes Responding to Claims of Misconduct During Field Trips Waldorf School of Orange County Costa Mesa Julie I. Strom Legal Issues Regarding Hiring City of Glendale J. Scott Tiedemann County of Sonoma Santa Rosa Gage Dungy Principles for Peace Officer Employment and Agency Accountability in the Age of Apps City of Desert Hot Springs, City of Cathedral City and City of Indio Cathedral City Frances Rogers City of Santa Maria Che I. Johnson Bias Training Contra Costa Community College District Martinez Laura Schulkind Speaking Engagements July 19 July 21 Avoiding Payment and Performance Problems on Your Construction Project CSDA Webinar Webinar Heather DeBlanc & Christopher S. Frederick Labor Relations Class California State Association of Counties (CSAC) Martinez Richard Bolanos & Richard S. Whitmore

11 July July 21 July 27 July 27 Aug. 3 Aug. 3 Aug. 17 Aug. 18 The Duty to Reasonably Accommodate Southern California Public Labor Relations Council (SCPLRC) Monthly Presentation Cerritos Laura Kalty The Nuts and Bolts of Human Resources in CCCs Today Association of California Community College Administrators (ACCCA) 2016 Admin 101 Irvine Mary Dowell & Cindy Vyskocil Enforcing Drug & Alcohol Policies in a World with Legalized Marijuana Public Employer Labor Relations Association of California (PELRAC) Mini Summit Tulare Che I. Johnson HR Boot Camp for Special Districts CSDA HR Boot Camp for Special Districts El Dorado Hills Gage Dungy & Kristin D. Lindgren Cash Payments Made to Employees in Lieu of Health Benefits Must be Included in the Regular Rate for Overtime Purpose Orange County Human Resources Consortium (OC-HRC) August Monthly Meeting Tustin Shardé C. Thomas Marijuana in the Workplace Trindel Insurance Weaverville Gage Dungy Legal Update County Personnel Administrators Association of California (CPAAC) Fresno Shelline Bennett Seminars/Webinars July 27 Aug. 10 Flores v. City of San Gabriel FLSA Impacts to Employers Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Webinar Jennifer Palagi & Lisa S. Charbonneau Register Here: Critical Issues in Discipline Appeal Hearings: Ensure Terminated Safety Employees Stay Terminated Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Webinar Morin Jacob & James Oldendorph Jr. Register Here:

12 6033 West Century Blvd., 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA Copyright 2016 Requests for permission to reproduce all or part of this publication should be addressed to Cynthia Weldon, Director of Marketing and Training at Fire Watch is published monthly for the benefit of the clients of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore. The information in Fire Watch should not be acted on without professional advice. To contact us, please call , , , or or