Let’s Talk - Lozano Smith Podcast

Join host Sloan Simmons as he sits down with Partner Wiley Driskill to discuss California’s Police Officer’s Bill of Rights (POBR) and Firefighter’s Bill of Rights (FOBR).  This back and forth provides a useful primer for municipal employers regarding the purpose of the POBR and FOBR statutory schemes, the rights they entitle to law enforcement officers and firefighters in the context of disciplinary investigations, personnel files, and other matters. Show Notes & References 1:15 – Overview of the Police Officers Bill of Rights (POBR) (1976) and the Firefighters Bill of Rights (FOBR) (2007) 3:15 – The legislative intent behind POBR and FOBR 4:13 – Punitive actions under POBR and FOBR 5:48 – Employee protections and rights during investigations 6:51 – Notices afforded to employees prior to and during investigation 7:55 – Evidence and recording during investigations 11:50 – Refusal to answer questions during the interview 12:06 –Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 40 Cal.3d 822 14:45 – The right to representation 15:37 – Timelines for commencing investigations and statutes of limitations 21:27 – Rules around employee personnel files 22:35 – The right to inspect personnel files 23:40 – Legal options for employees with position that rights have been violated 24:08 – Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a requirement under POBR and FOBR 25:25 – Potential outcomes if employee prevails in legal action alleging violations   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

When it comes to school and community college district projects, correctly classifying work as “maintenance” or “construction” can make or break your bidding and contracting process. In this episode, Lozano Smith attorneys Arne Sandberg and Andrea Olivarez join host Sloan Simmons to unpack the key distinctions between these two categories, how they impact contract structure and bidding requirements, and what your team needs to know about competitive thresholds and UPCCAA procedures. Whether you’re drafting a contract or preparing to go out to bid, this discussion offers essential guidance to ensure compliance and clarity. Show Notes & References 1:32 – Determining if a project is maintenance or construction 4:06 – Bidding process for maintenance and public projects 4:48 – Categorizing repair work as maintenance versus construction 8:27 – Impact on contracts 8:58: – “Required Work” and “Potential Work” contract language 11:55 – Unique bidding procedures for maintenance projects 13:11 – UPCCAA and informal bidding procedures 14:42 – Formal competitive bidding 15:50 – Key takeaways   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

In this episode, host Michelle Cannon engages with Lozano Smith Litigation Practice Group Co-Chair Sloan Simmons and Student Practice Group Co-Chair Kyle Raney to discuss the current state of the law in California under Mirabelli v. Bonta and Mahmoud v. Taylor.  The discussion reviews developments and what is anticipated in the courts through the conclusion of 2026 in relation to these cases and parallel litigation, and covers best practices and policy options for school officials due to the current status of the law. Show Notes & References 1:34 – Case background: Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025) 606 U.S. 522 (Client News Brief 28 – July 2025) 10:24 – Advice for local education agencies (LEAs) on how to respond to overly broad opt-out requests 11:18 – Status of Mozert and Peloza cases (Mozert v. Hawkins County Bd. of Ed. (6th Cir. 1987) 827 F.2d 1058; Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 1994) 37 F.3d 517) 12:25 – California Department of Education (CDE) guidance on Mahmoud 12:38 – Case background: Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026) 607 U.S. 492 (Client New Brief 9 – March 2026) 16:28 – Regino vs. Blake (E.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2026) 2026 WL 121667 (now pending on appeal before Ninth Circuit) 20:36 – Litigation before Ninth Circuit on Assembly Bill (AB) 1955; Chino Valley Unified School District, et al. v. Newsom, et al., Ninth Circuit Case No. 25-3686; City of Huntington Beach et al. v. State of California, Court of Appeals Case No. 26-25 21:44 – Background on AB 1955 (Client New Brief 8 – March 2026) 30:52 – Takeaways for LEAs on pending litigation cases 32:26 – Recommendations for updating LEA policies and practices 34:51 – More takeaways for LEAs and staff   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Public employees and officials have the right to participate in political activity, but important restrictions apply when personal advocacy intersects with public employment and agency resources. In this episode, host Michelle Cannon connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Scott Cross and Gail Zurek to discuss how public employees and officials can distinguish between permissible private political activity and conduct performed in an official capacity. The conversation explores campaign activity during work and personal time, the use of agency facilities and resources, political forums and campaign materials, and the rules governing uniforms, agency logos, and equipment. The discussion also examines how public agencies may provide neutral information about ballot measures without engaging in advocacy, along with restrictions involving campaign solicitations, political benefits, and the Levine Act. Show Notes & References 1:23 – Public employees and the right to participate in political activity 2:27 – Differentiating between personal (private) activities vs. official (public) activities 4:01 – Prohibited use of agency resources for campaign purposes (Government Code section 8314) 4:23 – Examples of agency resources 6:22 – The importance of where the political activity is taking place (public forums versus limited-public forums) 10:08 – Considerations around public agencies hosting political forums and remaining viewpoint neutral 12:00 – Distributing campaign materials on sidewalks in front of school grounds 14:59 – Prohibition on participation in campaign event while wearing their agency uniform (Government Code section 3206) 15:48 – Rules for teachers displaying campaign materials in the classroom 19:44 – Ballot measures on local agency issues 20:45 – Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206 and Vargas v. City of Salinas (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1 21:51 – Solicitation of campaign contributions (Government Code section 3205) 23:11 – Offering benefits in exchange for political support (Government Code section 3204) 24:07 – The Levine Act (Government Code section 84308)   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

California’s SB 848 introduces significant new requirements for educational agencies related to ensuring the safety of students. In this episode, host Michelle Cannon connects with Lozano Smith attorneys Carolyn Gemma and Brianna Ramos to discuss the background behind these new requirements and what educational agencies need to know as implementation continues. The conversation explores key changes, including new legal obligations regarding employment screening, comprehensive safety plans, mandated reports, and employee trainings. The discussion provides practical insights to help educational agencies understand the law’s various effective dates and take steps to maintain compliance moving forward. Show Notes & References 1:22 – Background information on Senate Bill (SB) 848 1:45 – Multiple effective dates that educational agencies should know about 4:05 – Employment screening process since January 1, 2026 4:33 – Assembly Bill (AB) 2534 and screening process for certificated job applicants 6:35 – Egregious misconduct under the law 8:16 – Repercussions for hiring educational agencies who do not comply with the required screening process 9:02 – What if a former educational agency does not respond to a hiring agency’s inquiry? 10:34 – Disclosure requirements for former employer agencies regarding past employee egregious misconduct 13:07 – California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) statewide database 14:52 – Requirements related to professional boundaries 16:24 – Requirement regarding comprehensive school safety plans 18:28 – Who is considered a mandated reporter under SB 848 19:15 – Volunteers under Penal Code definition 19:45 – Contractors 20:26 – New training requirements for mandated reporters 23:34 – CDE/California Department of Social Services training model for compliance with SB 848 24:02 – Next steps for educational agencies going forward to keep up to date with compliance   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

California’s AB 126 introduces significant changes to charter school oversight and authorizer responsibilities. In this episode, host Sloan Simmons connects with Lozano Smith’s Charter Practice Group Co-Chairs, Ed Sklar and Erin Hamor, to discuss the background behind these reforms and what they mean for charter schools and authorizers. The conversation explores key changes, including expanded oversight requirements, enhanced fiscal monitoring obligations, fraud reporting responsibilities, and further clarifications to California’s Charter Schools Act. The discussion provides practical insights to help authorizers prepare through policy updates, strengthened protocols, and improved documentation practices. Show Notes & References 1:22 – Background on Assembly Bill (AB) 126 and the implementation of increased oversight for charter schools 1:55 – A3 Charter Schools 5:52 – Moratorium on online non-classroom-based charter schools 7:33 – Oversight requirements now in place for charter authorizers 11:40 – Financial impact on school districts overseeing charter schools 13:12 – Looking ahead to July 1, 2027 17:08 – Auditing obligations for authorizers 18:14 – Other significant trailer bill provisions 19:18 – The erosion of the “mega waiver” 20:17 – Looking ahead to practical concerns and impacts on authorizers   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith’s Title IX Practice Group Co-Chairs, Sarah Fama and Monica Batanero, to discuss the Supreme Court’s opinion on two cases addressing transgender participation in girls’ school athletics:  West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox.  The discussion covers the Court’s holdings, legal reasoning, and implications for schools navigating student participation, safety, and competitive fairness. The episode also explores the impact on California schools, including related Title IX issues, pending litigation, and challenges to California’s existing legal framework. Show Notes & References 1:28 – Supreme Court rulings in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (2026) 609 U.S.  2:25 – Background on B.P.J. and Hecox cases 5:32 – What the Supreme Court decided 6:50 – Reasoning and analysis of the Court 8:00 – Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority: “The term ‘sex’ in the 1972 Title IX statute, the 1974 Javits Amendment, and the 1975 Title IX regulations cannot plausibly be interpreted to refer to anything other than biological sex. The ordinary meaning of the term ‘sex’ at the time of enactment in the early 1970s was biological sex and not gender identity, particularly in the sports context.” 9:17 – Safety and competitive fairness 11:56 – Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020) 590 U.S. 644 – (Client News Brief 86 – December 2020) 15:12 – Biological females who identify as male in male sports 17:31 – Concurrences and dissents of justices 19:16 – What happens now?  The state of the law in California 20:49 – Pending litigation in lower courts 21:28 – United States v. California Interscholastic Federation and California Department of Education, July 9, 2025 – (Client News Brief 31 – July 2025) 21:53 – United States v. Maine Department of Education (No. 1:25-cv-00173) 22:33 – Viability of challenges to U.S.A. v. CIF/CDE; AB 1266 and CIF Bylaws For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

The decision of who conducts an investigation carries important legal implications and shapes how the process unfolds. In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith attorneys Trevin Sims and Kara Walton to explore how public agencies approach selecting internal, outside, and attorney investigators and how those choices can affect confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. The discussion covers disclosure decisions around how investigative findings are shared or released, and how those choices can affect whether information remains protected or subject to waiver. Join us as we examine practical considerations for managing investigations while balancing transparency, privilege, and related legal obligations. Show Notes & References 1:39 – Selecting an investigator 3:55 – The process of retaining an attorney investigator 6:56 – Outside investigators and attorney-client privilege 8:05 – Who holds attorney-client privilege 10:05 – The pros and cons of intentional, partial waivers of attorney-client privilege and inadvertent disclosures which risk waiver of the privilege 13:28 – “Clawing back” disclosures (Ardon v. City of Los Angeles (2016) 63 Cal.4th 1 and Newark Unified School District v. Superior Court (Brazil) (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 33) 14:15 – Releasing a Summary of Findings verses full disclosure of investigation report 17:06 – Complaints and litigation possibilities post-disclosures 17:33 – Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) and appeals to the California Department of Education (CDE) 18:10 – CDE requests for full disclosure of investigation reports 20:30 – Discrimination and harassment investigations (BP/AR 4030s) and appeals to California’s Civil Rights Division (CRD) 21:03 – Litigation and discovery requests for attorney-client privileged reports 23:26 – Investigations into employee misconduct and union requests for information (RFI) 26:23 – Requests for reports under the California Public Records Act (CPRA)   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

Who has the authority to make educational decisions for a student? In this episode, host Michelle Cannon is joined by Lozano Smith attorneys Amanda Cordova and Anna Wood to discuss the legal framework surrounding educational rights, including special education considerations. The conversation explores custody arrangements, caregiver authority, AB 495, and when students hold their own educational rights. Join us as we explore practical guidance for navigating custody orders and other common educational rights issues faced by school districts. Show Notes & References 2:30 – Overview of educational rights 4:05 – Educational rights unique to parents of students who qualify for special education 5:45 – Parents and others who qualify as educational rights holders 7:23 – Custody arrangements for divorced, separated or unmarried parents 9:53 – Disagreements between parents with joint legal custody and how school districts should respond 11:32 – The importance of asking for custody orders 12:03 – Rights of parents who do not hold custodial rights 13:25 – What school administrators should be looking for when they receive a custody order 16:30 – Stepparents and caregivers, and assigning educational rights 18:23 – Assembly Bill (AB) 495 and caregiver’s affidavit (Client News Brief 46 – November 2025) 19:12 – Adult students holding their own educational rights   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.

In this episode, host Sloan Simmons is joined by Lozano Smith attorneys Sarah Garcia and Karina Demirchyan to discuss why student attendance has become a critical issue for local educational agencies and how attendance concerns can evolve into legal and special education obligations. Drawing on recent legislative updates and real-world experience, the conversation highlights funding considerations, attendance terminology, notification requirements, and when chronic absenteeism may trigger child find duties and further intervention. Show Notes & References 1:21 – Why attendance is a critical issue for Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) 1:57 – School funding and average daily membership (Senate Bill (SB) 98) 2:05 – Optional attendance recovery program (SB 153) 2:19 – New excused absences (SB 1138) (See Client News Brief 45 – October 2024) 2:51 – Truancy (AB 461) (See Client News Brief 58 – December 2025) 3:09 – Lozano Smith Podcast Episode 99: New Laws Impacting Students Heading into 2026 3:49 – Heightened attention on attendance from California Department of Education (CDE) and supporting data 6:18 – Correlation between attendance and discipline 7:51 – Legal requirements for LEAs regarding attendance 9:16 – Terminology (chronic absenteeism, truancy, habitual truancy, and chronic truancy) 14:51 – Notification requirements for truancy letters (SB 691) (See Client News Brief 45 – October 2024) 16:56 – When attendance issues become a special education issue 21:44 – Child find and evaluating absent students for special education 22:34 – Factors that LEAs should be looking for with attendance when considering referring a student for assessment 25:18 – School Attendance Review Board (SARB) 27:11 – Effective attendance and behavior interventions 28:44 – Parent training 30:56 – Cautionary tales and anecdotes from the field   For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast   Disclaimer: As the information contained herein is necessarily general, its application to a particular set of facts and circumstances may vary. For this reason, this podcast episode does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you consult with your counsel prior to acting on the information contained herein.