Brian P. Walter

Brian P. Walter, a partner at Liebert Cassidy Whitmore and chair of the firm’s litigation practice group, has established himself as a notable figure in employment law, particularly in defending public employers. His expertise is underscored by his role in significant cases, professional recognitions and contributions to the field.

A key case in which Walter played a major role was for the Los Angeles City Department of Water and Power. Rosario v. Los Angeles City Department of Water & Power, 20STCV07947 (L.A. Sup. Ct., filed Feb. 28, 2020.)

Concluding with a defense verdict in July 2022, this disability discrimination lawsuit involved a construction electrical mechanic who, after a knee injury and subsequent work restrictions that DWP couldn’t accommodate, faced termination following conflicts with supervisors.

A significant challenge was countering the plaintiff’s argument regarding DWP’s light duty policy changes after a prior injury. Walter successfully showed that the policy had been consistently applied since 2014, proving its legality. The jury, after a three-week trial, reached a defense verdict in under four hours, ruling in favor of DWP on all counts, including failure to engage in the interactive process, disability discrimination, and failure to reasonably accommodate.

Another significant case Walter participated in involved claims of disability discrimination and retaliation against the city of Anaheim. Elaine Estrada v. City of Anaheim, 30-2019-01105228 (O.C. Sup. Ct., filed Oct. 30, 2019).

The matter concluded with a defense verdict in July 2021. Walter, alongside co-counsel, successfully defended the city, countering allegations that the city’s failure to award Estrada a full-time position was discriminatory and that her supervisor made inappropriate comments about her medical condition. The jury ruled in favor of the city after a mere 80 minutes of deliberation.

“Both cases were disability discrimination jury trials in which we defended municipal employers against claims that they had failed to reasonably accommodate an employee’s disabilities and then retaliated against the employee,” Walter said. “The cases showed that employers who make good faith efforts to accommodate their employees can prevail against claims of failure to accommodate, even if the accommodation offered by the employer is not what the employee wanted.”

Walter notes an emerging trend in the field: an increase in claims related to remote work, particularly those involving wage and hour and reasonable accommodation issues. This observation reflects the evolving nature of employment law in the context of the increasing prevalence of remote work arrangements.