Our People

Geoffrey S. Sheldon

Partner, Los Angeles

310.981.2000
gsheldon@lcwlegal.com
Bio
Experience Representative Matters Affiliations Awards Publications Presentations

Geoff is an accomplished litigator, and the focus of his practice is complex state and federal litigation.  Geoff routinely represents employers and individual managers/supervisors alike in collective and class actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code, alleged violations of Title VII, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Military and Veterans Code and the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, the California and United States Constitutions, the Peace Officers Bill of Rights Act, the Firefighters Bill of Rights Act, writs of mandamus and other Superior Court writs, injunctions and other wrongful discharge actions. Geoff has compiled a record of success for the firm's clients through law and motion, trial, settlement, and, when necessary, appeal.

While Geoff represents all types of employers, he has extensive experience representing law enforcement and fire agencies, including successfully prosecuting employee discipline and grievance matters involving these employees. Geoff also handles other administrative matters for firm clients, such as DFEH and EEOC charges, Public Record Act requests, alleged Brown Act violations and internal investigations, and he provides advice and counsel to firm clients on a host of legal issues.

Prior to joining Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Geoff worked for a large litigation defense firm where he represented clients in products liability, tort and commercial litigation.

Geoff was recognized as a "Rising Star" in the field of labor and employment law in Law & Politics Magazine (e.g., Los Angeles Magazine) for five straight years, i.e., from 2004-08.

Representative Matters

Appellate

  • Petersen Law Firm v. City of Los Angeles (2011) - Litigated an appeal by petitioners that followed LCW's successfully defeating a lawsuit against the City through an Anti-SLAPP case.  On April 13, 2011, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting the Anti-SLAPP motion in favor of the City defendants.  The Court also determined that the trial court did not provide a sufficient explanation for awarding less than the full amount of attorney's fees, and remanded the case back to the trial court to reconsider the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to the City defendants.
  • Stephanie Blythe v. County of Riverside (2009) - Successful appeal to Fourth District of California Court of Appeal regarding an issue of mitigation of damages.  The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court and held that the County did make a sufficient showing of comparable employment.

Litigation

  • Successfully Defeated A Lawsuit Against A City In An Anti-SLAPP Case (2011) - LCW attorneys successfully defeated a lawsuit against the City and won an appeal in an Anti-SLAPP case.  On April 13, 2011, in an unpublished decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order granting the Anti-SLAPP motion in favor of the City defendants.  The Court also determined that the trial court did not provide a sufficient explanation for awarding less than the full amount of attorney's fees, and remanded the case back to the trial court to reconsider the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded to the City defendants.
  • Moon v. City of Downey (2010) - Summary judgment obtained in this sexual orientation discrimination, harassment and retaliation FEHA case.
  • Maciel v. City of Los Angeles (2008) -

    A federal District Court found in favor of the City on all claims after a seven-day bench trial.  To establish a claim for uncompensated overtime, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that he worked overtime hours without compensation; (2) the amount and extent of the work as a matter of just and reasonable inference; and (3) that the employer "suffered" or "permitted" the overtime work.  Maciel never sought pre-approval or submitted overtime slips for any of the overtime at issue in the lawsuit despite a written policy requiring him to do so.  Maciel claimed that he did not report all his overtime because his immediate supervisors (i.e., Sergeants and Lieutenants) enforced an "unwritten rule" which prohibited officers from submitting overtime reports for less than one hour of overtime.  He claimed that his daily field activity logs, presence at the worksite before and after his shifts, and the nature of his workload should have put his supervisors on notice that he was working overtime without compensation.

Affiliations

State Bar of California, Labor & Employment Section

Los Angeles County Bar Association

Awards

Selected for inclusion in Southern California Rising Stars 2004-2008

Publications

Presentations

Education

  • JD, Southwestern Law School, Los Angeles
  • BA, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
To Contact Liebert Cassidy Whitmore:
Los Angeles 310.981.2000 | Fresno 559.256.7800 | San Francisco 415.512.3000 | info@lcwlegal.com
© 2012 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore