Absmeier v. Simi Valley Unified School District
196 Cal. App. 4th 311
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Absmeier, a district personnel director, was terminated by Simi Valley Unified School District.
- The District used a hearing officer (ALJ) to conduct the administrative hearing and prepare findings.
- The ALJ delayed and ultimately did not render a decision for many months.
- To avoid delay, the Commission hired Miller, Brown & Dannis to review transcripts and issue a decision.
- The Commission adopted the law firm’s decision, which weighed evidence and credibility in the District’s favor.
- The trial court granted a writ of administrative mandamus, reversing the Commission’s actions; on appeal, the court reversed again to remand for proper appointment of an ALJ.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was good cause to remove the ALJ | Absmeier argues removal was improper and motivated by bias | The Commission acted for legitimate reasons due to delay and noncompliance by the ALJ | Yes, there was good cause to remove the ALJ |
| Whether replacing the ALJ with a law firm violated procedures | The District/Commission had no authority to have a law firm decide credibility | The Commission retained ultimate authority to render the decision | Yes, it violated procedures and undermined the process |
| Whether due process required a trier of fact who observed witnesses | The ALJ observed demeanor; credibility determinations require presence | The Commission could rely on transcripts and final review | Yes, due process requires an ALJ to preside and assess credibility |
| Whether the Commission’s actions deprived the case of jurisdiction | Failure to appoint a replacement ALJ after removal divested jurisdiction | The Commission remains capable of rendering the final decision | Yes, there was jurisdictional error and remand was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Haas v. County of San Bernardino, 27 Cal.4th 1017 (Cal. 2002) (impartial adjudicator required; disqualification considerations)
- Usher v. County of Monterey, 65 Cal.App.4th 210 (Cal. App. 1998) (due process; need for impartial ALJ; improper replacement procedures)
- Garza v. Workmen’s Comp. App. Bd., 3 Cal.3d 312 (Cal. 1970) (credibility determinations and deference to ALJ findings)
- Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Bd., 340 U.S. 474 (1951) (credibility determinations and deference to fact-finder findings)
- Garcia v. Los Angeles County Bd. of Education, 123 Cal.App.3d 807 (Cal. App. 1981) (delays in administrative decision-making; potential invalidation of proceedings)
- Abbott v. Mandiola, 70 Cal.App.4th 676 (Cal. App. 1999) (transcript-based credibility concerns; personal presence required)
- Gore v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 110 Cal.App.3d 184 (Cal. App. 1980) (weight given to ALJ findings observing demeanor)
- Guardianship of Sullivan, 143 Cal. 462 (Cal. 1904) (early authority on entitlement to decision by judge who hears evidence)