Watch David E. Mastagni Testifying for AB 340: PORAC Sponsored Legislation to Protect Confidential Union Communications

    On July 15, 2025, David E. Mastagni of Mastagni Holstedt, APC testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of AB 340 (Ahrens), a vital bill sponsored by PORAC that codifies existing PERB precedent to protect confidential communications between public employees and their union representatives. This legislation closes a statutory gap, ensuring workers—from teachers and firefighters to peace officers—can discuss grievances, safety concerns, or discipline without fear of employer intrusion. It's particularly important for public safety officers, who depend on candid union advice to navigate high-stakes investigations while fulfilling their duties.

    AB 340 prohibits public employers from questioning or compelling disclosure of these confidential representational communications, enforceable as an unfair labor practice through PERB. It exempts criminal investigations and aligns with the Peace Officers' Bill of Rights (Gov. Code § 3303), balancing accountability with representation rights. No evidentiary privilege is created—civil or criminal proceedings remain unaffected. This bill levels the playing field across PERB-jurisdictional employers, fostering trust and reducing litigation over coercive inquiries that chill protected activities.

    During the opening statement, Mastagni emphasized the bill's role in codifying PERB precedent and addressed opposition claims, explaining that AB 340 does not hinder investigations like those under AB 218 for childhood sexual assault. He noted that schools can question witnesses about firsthand knowledge, as the bill protects only representation-related communications lacking evidentiary value.

    In the Q&A session, committee members inquired about how employers would recognize confidential communications and the consequences of accidental intrusions. Mastagni explained that confidentiality is obvious in 99.9% of cases, such as when employers ask what a member told their representative during interview preparation. If an employer accidentally intrudes, the representative or member must object. PERB liability typically only arises if the employer compels disclosure after such an objection.

    The video of the hearing Q&A session is available here: Watch the Testimony.

    The bill passed the Judiciary Committee 10-2 and now heads to Appropriations, chaired by Senator Caballero, who voted yes in Judiciary. This momentum is reflective of the strong support from public employees and their unions for this bill.

    Thank you to the Judiciary Committee for advancing AB 340 and Assembly Member Patrick Ahrens for carrying this bill on behalf of PORAC. Mr. Mastagni is grateful for the opportunity to assist PORAC and work with their legislative advocate Randy Perry in drafting and advancing this bill. To drive final enactment, contact your legislators and Governor Newsome to urge their support—California's public employees deserve this safeguard.

    The video of the entire hearing is available here: Watch the Full Hearing.

Michigan Jury Acquits State Police Sergeant in Off-Duty Accidental Firearm Discharge Case

 In a notable victory for law enforcement, a Kalamazoo County jury acquitted Michigan State Police Sergeant Kellie Gillam-Shaffer of reckless firearm use charges stemming from an accidental discharge while she shopped off-duty at a Costco. The case highlights the challenges of proving criminal negligence in firearm mishaps, especially when officers follow departmental policies on off-duty carry. While this occurred in Michigan, it offers valuable insights for California peace officers on liability risks, training, and the importance of robust departmental protocols to defend against similar allegations.

Facts

In February 2025, Michigan State Police Sergeant Kellie Gillam-Shaffer was shopping off-duty at a Costco in Oshtemo Township, Kalamazoo County. As she checked out at the cash register, she placed her wallet back into her purse. At that moment, her department-issued Sig P365 firearm, which she carried in an Uncle Mike's foam holster inside the purse, discharged a round. The bullet passed through the holster, the purse, and the officer's hand. It then grazed another customer's ankle. Additionally, a third customer fainted due to distress from the loud noise and witnessing the injury.

Following an internal investigation and public outcry, the Kalamazoo County Prosecutor's Office charged Sergeant Gillam-Shaffer with Reckless Use of a Firearm Causing Injury, a misdemeanor under Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 752.861.

In July 2025, a Kalamazoo County jury acquitted Sergeant Gillam-Shaffer. The jury concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

Holding

The Constitution and relevant statutes require careful scrutiny in cases involving accidental firearm discharges by law enforcement officers. Michigan Compiled Laws 752.861 states: "Any person who, by carelessness, recklessness, or negligence, but not willfully or wantonly, shall cause or allow any firearm under his immediate control to be discharged so as to injure or endanger any other person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."

This statute criminalizes non-willful but negligent discharges that result in injury or endangerment. The key terms—carelessness, recklessness, or negligence—must be interpreted based on their ordinary meanings: carelessness as a lack of attention to safety, negligence as failure to exercise reasonable care, and recklessness as a conscious disregard of a known risk.

Michigan courts apply the plain meaning rule to statutory language. For conviction, the prosecution must show that the defendant's conduct deviated from what a reasonable person would do in handling a loaded firearm. The mens rea requires proof of fault beyond a mere accident, amounting to culpable negligence, as held in People v. Orr, 242 Mich. App. 694 (2000).

Law enforcement officers do not receive separate criminal immunity for off-duty carry in Michigan, but courts may consider professional training, expectations, and departmental policies in assessing reasonableness.

In this case, the prosecution argued that Sergeant Gillam-Shaffer was reckless because she entered a crowded store with a firearm lacking an external safety, carried a round in the chamber and a full magazine, and used a foam holster in her purse.

The defense countered that the Sig P365 and Uncle Mike's holster were department-issued. Michigan State Police require officers to carry firearms off-duty in approved holsters, loaded with a round chambered. The firearm features an internal safety preventing discharge without trigger pull. The defense portrayed the incident as a rare mechanical failure, not a foreseeable result of negligence.

The jury found that the prosecution failed to prove negligence under the circumstances. It entered a not guilty verdict, emphasizing that mere accident or mechanical issues do not suffice for liability. Although not precedential, this case is a reminder that prosecutors must prove a clear deviation from reasonable care. Accidental discharges tied to policy compliant carry may not meet this threshold.

Ninth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity to CHP officer Who Mistook Stroke for DUI: Must Officers Now Play Doctor? Implications for Officers' Medical Response Duties

 In a significant ruling for California law enforcement, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's grant of qualified immunity to a CHP officer who delayed medical care for a motorist suffering a stroke, after mistaking symptoms for drug impairment. D’Braunstein v. California Highway Patrol underscores officers' obligations to provide prompt medical aid to detainees showing signs of distress, regardless of suspected causes. In light of this decision officers should consider how they assess and respond to medical needs in the field.

Facts

On June 1, 2018, around 5:00 p.m., CHP Officer Samantha Diaz-Durazo responded to a single-vehicle crash on a freeway onramp in Orange County. The driver, 55-year-old Steven D’Braunstein, had totaled his car in a near head-on collision with a concrete wall. D’Braunstein told the officer he "didn’t know what happened" and that "the car did something." He exhibited signs of distress, such as dry mouth, slurred and slow speech, profuse sweating, confusion, poor balance, slow reaction time, and constricted pupils. He struggled to answer simple questions and interjected random comments during their conversation.

Suspecting impairment, Officer Durazo conducted field sobriety tests, which D’Braunstein failed due to his condition. His breathalyzer showed a BAC of 0.00, and Durazo noted he had a serious condition. However, she was not a drug recognition expert and did not call for one. Instead of summoning an ambulance, she arrested him for suspected DUI and transported him to jail about 45 minutes after arriving on scene—roughly an hour after the crash.

At the jail, a nurse refused to admit D’Braunstein after examination. After two hours there (about 3.5 hours post-crash), Durazo took him to a hospital, where doctors diagnosed a stroke. The delay allegedly prevented timely treatment that could have mitigated brain damage. D’Braunstein spent weeks in the hospital and now resides in a long-term care facility, unable to care for himself due to lasting injuries.

D’Braunstein’s son sued Officer Durazo and the CHP under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a Fourth Amendment violation for deprivation of medical care. The district court found a constitutional violation but granted summary judgment and qualified immunity, ruling the right was not "clearly established."

Holding

The Ninth Circuit analyzed the claim under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard for post-arrest care, which requires officers to seek necessary medical attention for injured detainees by promptly summoning help or transporting them to a hospital. This duty stems from the Constitution's requirement that state actors provide adequate medical care when confining individuals, as established in cases like County of Sacramento v. Lewis (1998) and DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989). For pretrial detainees, it also implicates the Fourteenth Amendment, but both use an objective reasonableness test.

The court held that a reasonable jury could find Durazo's actions objectively unreasonable. Despite the serious crash and D’Braunstein's symptoms (disorientation, profuse sweating, poor balance, and slurred speech), Durazo delayed care for hours. Her suspicion of drug use, unsupported by evidence, did not excuse the failure to act, as the crash and distress signals warranted emergency evaluation. The court emphasized, that the reason for the crash did not change the need for emergency medical evaluation.

On qualified immunity, the court rejected Durazo's argument that the duty applies only to injuries caused by officers. Existing precedent clearly establishes that officers must provide reasonable medical care for any serious medical need, regardless of cause. Citing Tatum v. City & County of San Francisco (2006) and others, the panel noted it doesn't require "unusual foresight" to recognize that a major accident victim showing distress needs prompt aid. Officers aren't expected to diagnose conditions but must assess if the situation calls for immediate help. The violation was clearly established, so qualified immunity was denied. The case was reversed and remanded.

Judge Lee partially dissented, arguing no clearly established law required distinguishing symptoms without obvious injury signs, but the majority held the duty was plain.

Takeaways for California Public Safety Employees

The Court found a broad duty to provide care. Officers must deliver objectively reasonable medical aid to detainees displaying need, irrespective of whether the issue stems from arrest, accident, or other causes. Mistaking medical emergencies for impairment won't shield from liability if signs of distress are ignored.

No diagnosis is required, but assessment is key. Officers don't need to pinpoint the ailment (e.g., stroke vs. drugs), but must evaluate if prompt medical attention is warranted based on observable facts like crash severity and symptoms.

This ruling may prompt agencies to enhance training on recognizing medical vs. impairment signs, encouraging earlier calls for paramedics or drug experts in ambiguous cases. The case highlights the risks in delaying care post-accident.

Expect more § 1983 claims challenging medical response delays. Document observations thoroughly and err toward summoning aid to demonstrate reasonableness.

This decision reinforces that protecting detainee well-being is paramount, even in high-pressure field scenarios.  

Major Victory for the Los Angeles City Attorneys Association: Court Upholds Right to Arbitrate

    On July 8, 2025, the Los Angeles City Attorneys Association (LACAA) achieved a significant legal triumph in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, in the case of Los Angeles City Attorneys Association, et al. vs. City of Los Angeles, et al. (Case No. 24STCP03479). The court granted LACAA’s petition to compel arbitration, affirming the right of our members to utilize the grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to address workplace disputes, including allegations of discrimination. This ruling, obtained by Steven Welch of Mastagni Holstedt, APC, affirms LACAA’s commitment to protecting the rights of Deputy City Attorneys and ensuring fair treatment in the workplace.

The Case: Jacquelyn Lawson’s Grievance

    The case centered on LACAA member Jacquelyn Lawson, a Deputy City Attorney over 40 years old, who initiated a grievance under Article 21 of MOU #29, alleging age-based discrimination in violation of Article 3, the MOU’s non-discrimination provision. Lawson claimed that on April 30, 2024, her supervisor inquired about her retirement plans, a comment she viewed as part of a pattern of age bias that led to her being passed over for deserved promotions. When the grievance was not resolved through the initial steps of the MOU’s four-step process, LACAA and Lawson petitioned to compel binding arbitration, as provided for in Article 21. The City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office (collectively, “the City”) opposed the petition, seeking to severely limit the scope of grievances that LACAA members could pursue under MOU #29.

The City’s Opposition: A Threat to Grievance Rights

    The City’s opposition was a broad attempt to curtail the grievance and arbitration rights guaranteed to LACAA members. They argued that only a very limited set of issues, such as disputes over sick pay or holiday pay, are subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures under Article 21, asserting that Lawson’s discrimination-based grievance fell outside this scope. Additionally, the City contended that the grievance was both substantively and procedurally non-arbitrable, claiming that Article 3’s non-discrimination policy does not create an arbitrable right and that the grievance was untimely, particularly regarding incidents predating the MOU’s effective date of January 1, 2024. The City further argued that discrimination allegations should be handled through their “MyVoiceLA” procedure, not the MOU’s grievance process. They also claimed that arbitrating Lawson’s grievance would infringe on their discretionary authority to make workplace decisions, violating public policy and potentially leading to “absurd results” where any workplace comment could trigger arbitration. Finally, the City downplayed the April 30, 2024, incident, suggesting that a single remark about retirement could not justify an arbitrable grievance.

The Court’s Ruling: A Resounding Win for LACAA

    Presided over by Judge Michael Small, the Superior Court rejected the City’s arguments and granted LACAA’s petition. The court held that Article 3’s non-discrimination policies can form the basis of a grievance under Article 21, as the provision explicitly prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics, including age. Lawson’s allegations of age bias clearly fall within this framework. The court rejected the City’s attempt to limit grievances to minor administrative issues. The court also found no basis in the MOU for the City’s claim that discrimination grievances must be channeled through MyVoiceLA, ensuring that LACAA members can pursue such claims through arbitration. Additionally, the court clarified that Lawson’s grievance concerns the broader implications of alleged age discrimination, not just a single remark, rebuffing the City’s attempt to trivialize the issue. The court dismissed the City’s public policy argument as overly broad, noting that it would effectively render all grievances non-arbitrable, and declined to address procedural objections about timeliness, leaving such disputes for arbitration. The case was stayed pending binding arbitration, with a status conference scheduled for July 9, 2026.

Long-term Implication of this Victory

    This ruling is a landmark win for LACAA and its members, preserving a critical mechanism for Deputy City Attorneys to address workplace injustices, including discrimination. Over the last several years, the City had engaged in a pattern of contesting the arbitrability or various grievances involving a variety of issues, including appeals of discipline. The City’s attempt to confine arbitrable grievances to narrow issues like pay or benefits was a direct threat to the protections LACAA has fought to secure. Had the City prevailed, it would have undermined the MOU’s grievance process, leaving members with limited recourse for serious workplace issues.

    Through the dedicated efforts of LACAA and Mastagni Holstedt, APC, this ruling prevents the City of Los Angels from unilaterally limiting the scope of LACAA’s collective bargaining agreement. It affirms that Article 3’s non-discrimination protections are enforceable rights, not mere platitudes, and that allegations of discrimination will be addressed through the fair, impartial process outlined in the MOU.

Los AngelesCity Attorneys Association

Understanding the No Tax on Tips and Overtime Provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) 

On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) into law, introducing significant tax relief for workers, including public safety labor union members like firefighters, police officers, and paramedics. Among its key provisions are deductions for qualified tips and overtime pay, designed to increase the take-home pay for those who rely on these income sources. This blog post explains how these deductions work, how they enhance the value of overtime (OT), and what they mean for joint filers earning over $300,000, including details on the phase-out and expiration date.

No Tax on Tips: What It Means for Union Members 

The OBBB allows workers in tipped occupations to deduct up to $25,000 of qualified tip income from their federal taxable income for tax years 2025 through 2028. Here’s how it works:

• Eligibility: The deduction applies to tips received in industries where tipping is customary, such as food service or hospitality. The IRS will provide further guidance on qualifying occupations.

• Deduction Amount: Up to $25,000 per year can be deducted, regardless of whether you itemize or take the standard deduction.

• Reporting: Tips must be reported on Form W-2 or Form 1099, and employers must separately report the total amount of cash tips.

• Payroll Taxes: The deduction applies only to federal income taxes, not Social Security or Medicare taxes.

For tipped employees, this deduction could save up to $3,000–$6,000 annually, depending on their tax bracket. For example, an employee earning $15,000 in tips from a part-time restaurant job could deduct that entire amount, reducing their taxable income and potentially saving $1,800–$3,300 in federal income taxes (assuming a 12%–22% tax bracket).

No Tax on Overtime: Boosting the Value of OT for Public Safety Employees

The OBBB’s “No Tax on Overtime” provision is particularly relevant for peace officers and firefighter, who often rely on overtime to meet staffing demands. This provision allows workers to deduct up to $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers) of qualified overtime compensation from their federal taxable income for tax years 2025 through 2028. Here’s a breakdown:

• Eligibility: The deduction applies to overtime pay required under Section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which mandates time-and-a-half pay for hours worked over 40 per week for non-exempt employees. Most public safety workers, such as firefighters and police officers, qualify as non-exempt under FLSA.

• Deduction Amount: Single filers can deduct up to $12,500, while joint filers can deduct up to $25,000 of qualified overtime pay. Only the overtime premium (the amount exceeding the regular rate) qualifies. For example, if you earn $30/hour and work 10 overtime hours at $45/hour, only the $15/hour premium ($150 total) counts toward the deduction, not the full $450.

• Reporting: Employers must report qualified overtime separately on Form W-2, and the deduction is only available for reported amounts.

• Payroll Taxes: Like the tip deduction, this applies only to federal income taxes, not Social Security or Medicare taxes.

How It Increases the Value of Overtime

For public safety employees, overtime is a critical income source, often comprising 20–30% of annual earnings. By exempting up to $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers) of overtime pay from federal income taxes, the OBBB effectively increases the after-tax value of OT. For example:

• Scenario: A police officer earns $150,000 in regular wages and $30,000 in overtime premium pay. Without the deduction, the $30,000 is taxed at their marginal rate (e.g., 24%, or $7,200 in taxes). With the OBBB deduction, $12,500 of the $30,000 is tax-free for federal income tax purposes for single filers (or $25,000 for joint filers), saving $3,000 (single, 24% bracket) or $6,000 (joint, 24% bracket).

• Impact: This tax savings increases the officer’s take-home pay, making overtime shifts more financially rewarding. The White House estimates average savings of up to $2,000 annually for qualifying workers, though the Tax Policy Center estimates average savings of $1,800.

For union members, this provision incentivizes taking on overtime shifts, especially in high-demand public safety roles, while boosting financial security.

Joint Filers Earning Over $300,000: Phase-Out Calculation

For joint filers with modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) exceeding $300,000, both the tip and overtime deductions phase out. MAGI is calculated as adjusted gross income (AGI) plus certain exclusions (e.g., foreign income under Code sections 911, 931, or 933). Here’s how the phase-out works:

• Phase-Out Mechanism: The deduction is reduced by $100 for every $1,000 of MAGI above $300,000 for joint filers.

• Calculation Example:

  • A firefighter and their spouse file jointly with a MAGI of $350,000, including $20,000 in qualified overtime pay.

  • Excess MAGI: $350,000 – $300,000 = $50,000.

  • Reduction: ($50,000 ÷ $1,000) × $100 = $5,000.

  • Deduction: $25,000 (max for joint filers) – $5,000 = $20,000.

  • Result: They can deduct $20,000 of the $20,000 overtime pay, fully eliminating federal income tax on it.

• Complete Phase-Out: The deduction is fully phased out when MAGI reaches $550,000 ($300,000 + $250,000, as $25,000 ÷ $100 × 1,000 = $250,000). At this point, no deduction is available.

For high-earning joint filers, the phase-out limits the benefit, but partial deductions can still provide significant savings. For example, a couple with $400,000 MAGI could deduct $15,000 of overtime pay, saving $3,300–$5,550 in taxes (assuming a 22%–37% tax bracket).

Expiration Date

Both the tip and overtime deductions are temporary, effective for tax years 2025 through 2028. They expire on December 31, 2028, unless Congress extends them. This means the last tax returns to claim these deductions will be filed in early 2029. Union members should plan accordingly, as the tax benefits may not persist beyond 2028.

Practical Implications for Public Safety Union Members

1. Increased Take-Home Pay: The overtime deduction directly boosts the value of OT shifts, making them more lucrative. This is especially beneficial for public safety employees facing mandatory overtime due to staffing shortages.

2. Reporting Requirements: Ensure your employer correctly reports overtime pay on Form W-2. Check pay stubs and W-2s for separate reporting of qualified overtime to maximize your deduction.

3. Tax Planning: Consult a tax professional to understand how these deductions interact with your overall tax situation, especially if you’re a joint filer nearing or exceeding $300,000 MAGI.

4. Side Gigs: If you work a tipped side job, such as ridesharing, track your tips meticulously to claim the full $25,000 deduction.

Caveats and Considerations

• Limited Benefit for Low-Income Workers: Workers with incomes below the standard deduction ($15,750 for single filers, $31,500 for joint filers in 2025) may see little benefit, as their federal tax liability is already low.

• Payroll Tax Burden: Social Security and Medicare taxes still apply, reducing the net benefit. For example, $10,000 in overtime incurs $765 in payroll taxes (7.65%).

• Potential Labor Market Effects: Some analysts warn that the overtime deduction could encourage employers to rely more on OT rather than hiring additional staff, potentially increasing workload pressures.

Conclusion

The OBBB’s no tax on tips and overtime provisions offer meaningful tax relief for public safety labor union members, particularly those earning significant overtime. By deducting up to $12,500 ($25,000 for joint filers) of overtime pay, workers can save up to $2,000–$5,550 annually, depending on their tax bracket and income. For joint filers earning over $300,000, the phase-out reduces the deduction, but partial benefits remain until MAGI reaches $550,000. These deductions, effective through 2028, enhance the financial value of overtime, providing financial support to the hardworking men and women who keep our communities safe.

For personalized advice, consult a tax professional to maximize these benefits.