Conger v. Cnty. of L. A., 36 Cal. App. 5th 262

Conger, a Los Angeles County deputy, was promoted to lieutenant on Nov 1, 2015 subject to a six‑month probationary period.
An investigation into an alleged unreported use of force from May 21, 2015 (when Conger was a sergeant) began April 2016; he was relieved of duty and his probation was extended.
On May 20, 2016 the Department rescinded Conger’s probationary promotion and returned him to sergeant, citing a "Report on Probationer" that criticized his failure to report/document the use of force.
Conger sought administrative remedies under POBRA §3304(b) (right to administrative appeal for punitive action or denial of promotion on non‑merit grounds); the County and Civil Service Commission denied relief.
Trial court denied his writ; the Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding the action was a denial of promotion (not a demotion), the grounds were merit‑based, and Conger failed to show the evaluation would cause future adverse career consequences beyond losing the probationary post.

Issue	Conger’s Argument	County’s Argument	Held
Was return to sergeant a demotion (punitive) or denial of promotion?	Characterized it as a demotion triggering POBRA appeal rights.	It was a denial of promotion during probation (non‑punitive).	Denial of promotion during probation; not a demotion.
Did the denial rest on "grounds other than merit" (triggering §3304(b))?	Denial based on pre‑probation conduct is non‑merit and thus appealable.	Failure to report use of force is substantially related to lieutenant duties—a merit ground.	Denial was merit‑based; no §3304(b) right to appeal.
Does officer’s probationary status affect right to appeal?	Contended exclusion in §3304(b) shouldn't bar review for promotion denials based on non‑merit.	Even if relevant, Conger had not completed probation and Guinn supports no appeal for probationary returns.	Court resolved on merit ground and did not reach probation‑status argument.
Can placement of a negative evaluation in personnel file independently trigger §3304(b) because it may harm future career?	The negative evaluation itself may be used in future decisions, thus punitive and appealable.	Mere possibility of future merit‑based promotion denial does not convert a merit denial into punitive action.	Conger provided no evidence the evaluation would cause future punitive consequences; mere placement is insufficient.

Guinn v. County of San Bernardino, 184 Cal.App.4th 941 (Cal. Ct. App.) (returning employee from promotional probation is a denial of promotion, not a demotion)
Swift v. County of Placer, 153 Cal.App.3d 209 (Cal. Ct. App.) (rejection during probation is not a punitive action under POBRA)
Henneberque v. City of Culver City, 147 Cal.App.3d 250 (Cal. Ct. App.) (probationary return analyzed as demotion where facts suggested summary punitive action and possible discrimination)
White v. County of Sacramento, 31 Cal.3d 676 (Cal.) (demotion is per se disciplinary under POBRA)
Hopson v. City of Los Angeles, 139 Cal.App.3d 347 (Cal. Ct. App.) (public report placing misconduct in file may be punitive if it will have career ramifications)
Caloca v. County of San Diego, 72 Cal.App.4th 1209 (Cal. Ct. App.) (external findings of misconduct that will be considered in future personnel decisions can be punitive)
Otto v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 89 Cal.App.4th 985 (Cal. Ct. App.) (memorandum warning of future discipline placed in file can trigger POBRA appeal)
Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, 232 Cal.App.4th 136 (Cal. Ct. App.) (an adverse consequence must be among POBRA’s listed punitive actions to trigger administrative‑appeal protections)