70 Cal.App.5th 117
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Carrasco, a long‑time parole agent, was promoted to special agent with a 12‑month probationary period; the Department served a notice rejecting him during probation listing six discrete reasons.
- Key allegations included: resisting corrective instruction and being discourteous during Simunition® tactical training (reason 2), and submitting a late and incomplete arrest report (reason 4).
- After an ALJ hearing, the Board initially upheld five of six reasons; Carrasco sought writ review in superior court, which found only reasons 2 and 4 supported by substantial evidence and remanded to the Board to decide (1) whether those two reasons alone justified rejection under Gov. Code §19175 and (2) whether the Department acted in bad faith.
- On remand the ALJ and Board concluded the two remaining reasons alone were sufficient to uphold rejection and that the Department did not act in bad faith; the superior court denied Carrasco’s writ and this appeal followed.
- The appellate court affirmed: §19175(d) does not require reinstatement if at least one stated reason is supported by substantial evidence; the record contains substantial evidence supporting reasons 2 and 4; and there was no bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gov. Code §19175(d) requires reinstatement when fewer than all stated reasons are supported by substantial evidence | §19175(d)'s phrasing ('reason or reasons') and the notice's six interlocking allegations mean the rejection must fail once most reasons are invalidated | §19175(d) permits the Board to deny reinstatement if any one stated reason is supported by substantial evidence; the statute and precedent focus on whether the rejection as a whole is supported | Held: A single stated reason supported by substantial evidence is sufficient to uphold a probationary rejection absent fraud or bad faith. |
| Whether the administrative record contains substantial evidence for reason 2 (resistance to training/corrective instruction) | Video and some testimony show Carrasco followed instructions and was not discourteous or insubordinate | Instructors’ live testimony and contemporaneous reports show Carrasco denied wrongdoing, talked over instructors, resisted corrective feedback, and refused to be receptive | Held: Substantial evidence supports reason 2 (resistance to corrective instruction). |
| Whether the record contains substantial evidence for reason 4 (late/incomplete arrest report) | No written SOP; academy training on report writing was cancelled, so Carrasco could not be faulted | Supervisor testimony established a local six‑day expectation, direct instruction to Carrasco, late submission, missing attachments, and omissions in the report | Held: Substantial evidence supports reason 4 (untimely and incomplete report). |
| Whether the Department acted in bad faith in rejecting Carrasco | The Department relied on post‑decision incidents, ‘piled on’ allegations, and effectively tricked Carrasco by not timely notifying or training him on issues | Performance reviews, counseling letters, and field training over many months put Carrasco on notice of deficiencies; no evidence of intentional deception or animus | Held: No bad faith; the record shows ongoing notice and opportunities to improve, distinguishing prior cases where employers misled probationers. |
Key Cases Cited
- California State Personnel Bd. v. California State Employees Assn., Local 1000, SEIU, AFL-CIO, 36 Cal.4th 758 (2005) (constitutional and statutory framework for civil service administration)
- Wiles v. State Personnel Bd., 19 Cal.2d 344 (1942) (purpose of probationary period and appointing power’s discretion)
- Boutwell v. State Bd. of Equalization, 94 Cal.App.2d 945 (1949) (appointing power’s discretion and statutory context)
- Anderson v. State Personnel Bd., 103 Cal.App.3d 242 (1980) (reinstatement requires showing no substantial evidence supported the rejection)
- Lee v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., 221 Cal.App.3d 103 (1990) (same principle focusing on whether rejection is supported by substantial evidence)
- Kuhn v. Department of General Services, 22 Cal.App.4th 1627 (1994) (standard for bad faith in probationary rejection context)
- City of Desert Hot Springs v. Valenti, 43 Cal.App.5th 788 (2019) (statutory interpretation principles and avoiding absurd results)
- Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., 47 Cal.3d 654 (1988) (implied covenant of good faith context referenced in bad‑faith analysis)