the whole object this page is drawn from, as JSON · Open JSON
{
"id":"atm_crawl_93965a7afb1bebb9",
"kind":"LocalBusiness",
"name":"California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog",
"parent_id":"atm_geoid_06041",
"depth":null,
"facts": {
"name":"California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog",
"crawl":true,
"email":null,
"phone":"4155123000",
"address":null,
"website":"https://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/",
"category":null,
"found_on":"calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com",
"found_url":"https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/special-bulletin/perb-rules-employer-has-no-obligation-to-provide-union-or-employee-with-written-complaint-until-after-initial-investigatory-interview/"
},
"source_id":"src_5ad3cc6df1d1e72a55ad",
"updated_at":"2026-10-14T01:23:44.598Z",
"type":"Feature",
"geometry":null,
"links": {
"self":"https://miscsubjects.com/atlas/atoms/atm_crawl_93965a7afb1bebb9",
"children":"https://miscsubjects.com/atlas/atoms/atm_crawl_93965a7afb1bebb9/children",
"descendants":"https://miscsubjects.com/atlas/atoms/atm_crawl_93965a7afb1bebb9/descendants",
"inside":"https://miscsubjects.com/atlas/atoms/atm_crawl_93965a7afb1bebb9/inside",
"graph":"https://miscsubjects.com/atlas/graph?start=atm_crawl_93965a7afb1bebb9"
},
"ancestors": [
{
"id":"atm_geoid_06041",
"kind":"County",
"name":"Marin County",
"up":1
},
{
"id":"atm_geoid_06",
"kind":"State",
"name":"California",
"up":2
},
{
"id":"atm_geoid_us",
"kind":"Country",
"name":"United States",
"up":3
}
],
"children_by_kind": [],
"edges_out": [
{
"rel":"has_profile",
"id":"atm_prof_4693934e882f6bdadc3a",
"kind":"Profile",
"name":"linkedin: company/liebert-cassidy-whitmore",
"share":null
}
],
"edges_in": [
{
"rel":"site_of",
"id":"atm_site_bd4a8ba0f5fcf72b0e23",
"kind":"Website",
"name":"California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog",
"share":null
}
],
"edges_in_total":1,
"external_ids": [],
"source": {
"id":"src_5ad3cc6df1d1e72a55ad",
"url":null,
"license":"public web pages, robots.txt honoured",
"read_at":"2026-10-13T23:21:09.844Z",
"sha256":"208b3244e04e88f503da63917fd963b3f4f5a70528be355db4d5f625a8a28164"
},
"observations": [
{
"service":"WEBSITE_EXTRACT",
"fetched_at": {},
"query": {
"job":"website:atm_crawl_93965a7afb1bebb9",
"url":"https://calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/"
},
"payload": {
"title":"California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog | Liebert Cassidy Whitmore",
"emails": [],
"jsonld": [
{
"@graph": [
{
"@id":"https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/",
"url":"https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/",
"name":"California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog | Liebert Cassidy Whitmore",
"@type":"CollectionPage",
"isPartOf": {
"@id":"https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/#website"
},
"breadcrumb": {
"@id":"https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/#breadcrumb"
},
"inLanguage":"en-US",
"description":"This law blog provides news & commentary on developments in public agency management, labor relations and employment law in California. Topics include workplace policies, disability and discrimination in the workplace."
},
{
"@id":"https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/#breadcrumb",
"@type":"BreadcrumbList",
"itemListElement": [
{
"name":"Home",
"@type":"ListItem",
"position":1
}
]
},
{
"@id":"https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/#website",
"url":"https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/",
"name":"California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog",
"@type":"WebSite",
"inLanguage":"en-US",
"description":"Useful information for navigating legal challenges",
"potentialAction": [
{
"@type":"SearchAction",
"target": {
"@type":"EntryPoint",
"urlTemplate":"https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/?s={search_term_string}"
},
"query-input": {
"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification",
"valueName":"search_term_string",
"valueRequired":true
}
}
]
}
],
"@context":"https://schema.org/"
},
{
"@type":"LegalService",
"image":"https://calpublicagencylaboremploymentboutique.lexblogplatformthree.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/855/2019/06/logo-color.png",
"address": {
"@type":"PostalAddress",
"postalCode":"90045",
"addressRegion":"CA",
"streetAddress":"6033 West Century Blvd 5th Floor ",
"addressLocality":"Los Angeles"
},
"@context":"http://www.schema.org/",
"legalName":"Liebert Cassidy Whitmore",
"telephone":"310.981.2000"
},
{
"@type":"LegalService",
"image":"https://calpublicagencylaboremploymentboutique.lexblogplatformthree.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/855/2019/06/logo-color.png",
"address": {
"@type":"PostalAddress",
"postalCode":"94105",
"addressRegion":"CA",
"streetAddress":"135 Main Street 7th Floor ",
"addressLocality":"San Francisco"
},
"@context":"http://www.schema.org/",
"legalName":"Liebert Cassidy Whitmore",
"telephone":"415.512.3000"
},
{
"@type":"LegalService",
"image":"https://calpublicagencylaboremploymentboutique.lexblogplatformthree.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/855/2019/06/logo-color.png",
"address": {
"@type":"PostalAddress",
"postalCode":"93704",
"addressRegion":"CA",
"streetAddress":"5250 N. Palm Avenue Suite 310 ",
"addressLocality":"Fresno"
},
"@context":"http://www.schema.org/",
"legalName":"Liebert Cassidy Whitmore",
"telephone":"559.256.7800"
},
{
"@type":"LegalService",
"image":"https://calpublicagencylaboremploymentboutique.lexblogplatformthree.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/855/2019/06/logo-color.png",
"address": {
"@type":"PostalAddress",
"postalCode":"92101",
"addressRegion":"CA",
"streetAddress":"101 West Broadway Suite 1000 ",
"addressLocality":"San Diego"
},
"@context":"http://www.schema.org/",
"faxNumber":"619.446.0015",
"legalName":"Liebert Cassidy Whitmore",
"telephone":"619.481.5900"
},
{
"@type":"LegalService",
"image":"https://calpublicagencylaboremploymentboutique.lexblogplatformthree.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/855/2019/06/logo-color.png",
"address": {
"@type":"PostalAddress",
"postalCode":"95814",
"addressRegion":"CA",
"streetAddress":"400 Capitol Mall Suite 1260 ",
"addressLocality":"Sacramento"
},
"@context":"http://www.schema.org/",
"faxNumber":"916.584.7083",
"legalName":"Liebert Cassidy Whitmore",
"telephone":"916.584.7000"
}
],
"phones": [
"310.981.2000",
"415.512.3000",
"559.256.7800",
"619.481.5900",
"916.584.7000"
],
"public":true,
"sha256":"9b995ac922cdfb019f39730a6d4578fd89c7976793ba33c01990922457665ed4",
"excerpt":" California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog | Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Skip to content California Public Agency Labor & Employment Blog Useful information for navigating legal challenges Menu Current Page: Home About Meet the Team Services Resources Contact Subscribe Search… Search Governor Newsom Signs the MELT ICE Act of 2026, Broadening the Basis for Peace Officer Disqualification, and Vetoes the GTFO Act By Emanuela Tala & Paul D. Knothe on October 7, 2026 Posted in Employment , Hiring , Legislation , Personnel Issues , Public Safety Issues , Public Sector Governor Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 1627 (“AB 1627”), the Misconduct Ends Law-Enforcement Trust Act of 2026, expanding the circumstances under which prior misconduct by an immigration enforcement officer may disqualify that person from serving as a peace officer in California. Importantly for law enforcement agencies conducting background investigations, prior employment in immigration enforcement is not, by itself, disqualifying. Rather, AB 1627 brings immigration enforcement officers within an existing statutory disqualification for certain former law enforcement officers who lost their certification for misconduct or engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in decertification had they been California peace officers. AB 1627 takes effect January 1, 2027. The practical effect is that agencies evaluating applicants with prior immigration enforcement experience will need to determine whether the applicant’s prior conduct triggers Government Code section 1029, subdivision (a)(11)(A). An applicant is potentially disqualified if: (1) the applicant’s name is listed in one of the specified indexes or databases and the applicant’s law enforcement certification was revoked for misconduct; or (2) while employed as a law enforcement officer, the applicant engaged in serious misconduct that would have resulted in revocation of the applicant’s certification by the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) had the applicant been employed as a California peace officer. AB 1627 specifies that, for purposes of this disqualification, “employed in law enforcement” and “law enforcement officer” include law enforcement officers employed by another state, a United States territory, or the federal government who engage in immigration enforcement. AB 1627 defines “immigration enforcement” broadly to encompass efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of federal civil immigration law, as well as federal criminal immigration laws penalizing a person’s presence in, entry or reentry to, or employment in the United States. Thus, the new law potentially reaches immigration enforcement activity beyond employment by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). The distinction between AB 1627 and another bill considered by the Legislature this year is significant. On September 30, 2026, Governor Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 1896 (“AB 1896”), known as the Get the Feds Out (“GTFO”) Act. AB 1896 would have imposed a substantially broader employment prohibition based on participation in specified federal immigration enforcement activity, rather than requiring the misconduct-based showing applicable under AB 1627. In his veto message, Governor Newsom characterized the default employment prohibition proposed by AB 1896 as “a step too far.” Because AB 1896 was vetoed, California law does not categorically disqualify an applicant from peace officer employment merely because the applicant previously engaged in federal immigration enforcement. Under AB 1627, the relevant inquiry remains whether the applicant falls within the misconduct-based grounds for disqualification under Government Code section 1029, subdivision (a)(11)(A). Email this post Tweet this post Like this post Share this post on LinkedIn Governor Newsom Signs Senate Bill 1004, Expanding the No Secret Police Act By Emanuela Tala & Paul D. Knothe on October 6, 2026 Posted in Constitutional Rights , Legislation , Public Safety Issues , Public Sector , Workplace Policies Senate Bill 627 (“SB 627”), known as the No Secret Police Act, was signed and chaptered on September 20, 2025. Senate Bill 1004 (“SB 1004”), signed on September 29, 2026, makes several changes to the Act, including expanding its application to state-employed peace officers and modifying its exemptions, compliance deadline, and liability provisions. First, SB 1004 adds state entities that employ peace officers to the definition of law enforcement agency as used in the statute. Law enforcement officer now also includes a peace officer as defined in Penal Code section 830 employed by a state agency. This amendment responds to United States District Court for the Central District of California Judge Christina Snyder’s February 9, 2026, ruling in United States of America v. State of California, et al., in which the court pre",
"source_url":"https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/",
"observed_at":"2026-10-14T01:33:39.456Z"
}
}
],
"edges_out_total":1
}