CA Correctional Peace Officers Assn v. Dept. of Corrections, C078723

Background

Plaintiff California Correctional Peace Officers Association filed a grievance on behalf of officer Sammie Gardner alleging Corrections violated USERRA by withholding employment/rehiring benefits after his military service tied to post-9/11 deployment and inability to attend a 2001 academy.
The MOU grievance procedure between the Association and Corrections allowed USERRA/military-leave claims (section 10.17) to be appealed to the Department of Personnel Administration (fourth step); merit-system appeals (SPB) were excluded.
Corrections denied the grievance at steps two and three; the Department granted the grievance in March 2012, finding Gardner had an employment relationship in 2001 and was entitled to seniority, retirement, and salary-credit remedies under USERRA.
Corrections later refused to implement the Department’s decision (after issuing a tentative $15,000 “good faith” payment), and the Association sought a writ of mandate to compel compliance.
At trial, Corrections argued for the first time that the State Personnel Board (SPB) had exclusive jurisdiction over appointment/employment-status questions (merit principle), so the Department lacked authority; the trial court denied the writ.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the grievance did not implicate the merit principle and the Department (under the MOU) properly resolved Gardner’s USERRA claims; Corrections forfeited procedural objections by acquiescing to the grievance process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a USERRA grievance alleging discrimination/reeemployment is within SPB's exclusive jurisdiction under the merit principle	USERRA claims are not merit-based; discrimination claim concerns non-merit factors and reemployment/pay issues fall under Department authority	SPB has exclusive jurisdiction over appointments/employment status, and resolving the grievance required determining employment/appointment date (a merit matter)	Grievance did not implicate the merit principle; SPB did not have exclusive jurisdiction; Department could decide under the MOU
Whether the MOU authorized the Department to decide Gardner’s USERRA reemployment claim	Section 10.17 and MOU step-four expressly permit USERRA/military-leave appeals to the Department	The claim required an initial employment determination (appointment) and thus fell outside MOU coverage and should go to SPB	MOU covers USERRA reemployment claims; requiring SPB to first determine employment status would create impractical dual-track; Department properly adjudicated the claim
Whether the USERRA discrimination claim was grievable under the MOU	Association: discrimination based on military status is a USERRA claim and was presented in the grievance; Department need not resolve every subissue to grant relief	Corrections: MOU’s summary of section 10.17 doesn’t reference discrimination; DOM reserves EEO complaints (including veteran/military status) outside grievance procedure	Even if discrimination issue arguably outside MOU, Corrections acquiesced by not objecting and therefore forfeited the procedural objection; Department did not base relief on discrimination finding anyway
Whether Corrections forfeited objection to the grievance forum	Association: Corrections used the MOU process, litigated through step four, and made a good-faith payment—so it forfeited forum objections	Corrections: SPB exclusivity is a constitutional mandate and cannot be waived by civil parties or MOU	Court: Corrections forfeited non-constitutional procedural objections by acquiescing; but constitutional limits are dispositive only where the merit principle is implicated (which it was not here)

Key Cases Cited

Pacific Legal Foundation v. Brown, 29 Cal.3d 168 (discusses merit principle and SPB role)
State Personnel Bd. v. California State Employees Assn., Local 1000, SEIU, AFL-CIO, 36 Cal.4th 758 (MOU/legislative changes cannot supplant constitutionally required merit-based appointment standards)
State Personnel Bd. v. Department of Personnel Administration, 37 Cal.4th 512 (SPB exclusive review of disciplinary actions as necessary to merit principle)
State Personnel Bd. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 39 Cal.3d 422 (fair employment agency functions do not conflict with merit principle; nondiscrimination reinforces merit)
California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd., 10 Cal.4th 1133 (statutory alterations of SPB deadlines and judicial review do not violate merit principle)
Gilb v. Chiang, 186 Cal.App.4th 444 (Department’s jurisdiction over financial/benefits aspects of employment distinguished from SPB’s merit role)
Garrett v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 449 F.3d 672 (USERRA claims can be resolved in nonjudicial forums)
Quick v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 544 F.Supp.2d 1197 (USERRA broadly construed in favor of service members)
McLain v. City of Somerville, 424 F.Supp.2d 329 (USERRA prohibits denying hire due to military-unavailability)