Marek Pienkos

Public Safety Officer Termination (2021) – LCW won a termination appeal regarding a sheriff’s deputy who was confronted by a citizen while he was illegally dumping debris. When the situation escalated, the deputy threw a rock at the citizen’s car as she drove away causing approximately $1,600 in damages when the rock cracked the vehicle’s windshield and damaged its side mirror. The hearing officer did not find the deputy’s self-defense argument credible due to his actions and training as a peace officer.

Fire Captain v. City (2023) – Won a motion for summary judgement on a fire captain’s claim for age discrimination and whistleblower retaliation.  Convinced the court that the city had legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons for not promoting the captain to battalion chief which had no nexus to the fire captain’s whistleblowing or age.

Fire Captain v. City (2023) – The fire captain’s lawsuit alleged that after he reported to the City’s HR that he believed the department’s executive officers had misused funds for the purchase of firefighting gear, he: 1) was demoted from a volunteer position and replaced by a much younger person; and 2) received substandard evaluations. Following a motion for summary judgement that showed the department took no adverse actions against the captain, the court dismissed the case.

Firefighter v. City (2024) – A firefighter sued his city employer for whistleblower retaliation and age discrimination.  He alleged that some of his unpaid and voluntary activities for the fire department changed after he reported that fire department management was involved in a scheme to obtain emergency federal funds.  Jennifer Rosner, Joung Yim and Marek Pienkos convinced the California Court of Appeal to uphold the city’s successful motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the firefighter failed to show how the change in his extracurricular activities affected his official position and duties.

Applicant v. City (2023) – A job applicant who was not selected for a position sued a city for discrimination under state and federal law.  The U.S. District Court dismissed the applicant’s lawsuit on the city’s motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the applicant failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he was qualified for the position, or whether the legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons the city gave for failing to hire him were pretextual. The applicant appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the District Court’s ruling.