Do v. The Regents of the University of California CA4/1, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1474

Do, a permanent university employee in San Diego, was terminated in August 2009 for alleged workplace intimidation under University policy 538.2K and core values.
The termination followed a July 8, 2009 meeting at which Do’s explanation about a June 4 remark was deemed to demonstrate inappropriate conduct.
Do initially contested the decision, arguing for independent judgment review and asserting lack of substantial evidence of a credible threat to his supervisor.
The university treated the incident as insubordination and a threat under a zero-tolerance policy, resulting in a Skelly hearing and formal dismissal.
Three levels of university review upheld the termination, culminating in a November 2010 hearing officer finding an intentional act that violated policy, leading to dismissal.
Do filed for administrative mandamus; the trial court applied substantial evidence review and denied relief, prompting Do’s appeal to the appellate court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard of review for University decisions	Do argues independent judgment should apply (Sarka).	University argues constitutional quasi-judicial review with substantial evidence standard (Ishimatsu/Miklosy).	Substantial evidence review applies; independent judgment not required.
Whether University had authority to adjudicate employment disputes	University lacks explicit delegation; should reweigh evidence.	University has constitutional quasi-judicial authority to decide employment matters.	University has quasi-judicial authority; proper to review under substantial evidence.
Sufficiency of evidence of a credible threat	No intent to threaten or cause fear; statements were not credible threats.	Statements created a reasonable fear of harm given work proximity and circumstances.	Substantial evidence supports finding of intentional act and violation of policy.
Whether Do’s July 8 statements constituted misconduct justifying dismissal	Statements were not threats and do not warrant dismissal.	Statements, viewed in context, violated zero-tolerance policy and core values; dismissal proper.	Yes; the statements constituted actionable intimidation justifying termination.
Role of progressivediscipline vs immediate discharge	University should have used lesser discipline for private conduct.	Policy permits dismissal for serious misconduct without progressive discipline.	No lesser discipline required; dismissal supported by evidence of serious misconduct.

Ishimatsu v. Regents of University of California, 266 Cal.App.2d 854 (1968) (constitutional delegation of quasi-judicial power to UC; substantial evidence review)
Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, 44 Cal.4th 876 (2008) (uniquely autonomous UC; procedural due process in employment disputes)
Campbell v. Regents of University of California, 35 Cal.4th 311 (2005) (public trust and UC’s broad powers; quasi-judicial authority acknowledged)
Sarka v. Regents of University of California, 146 Cal.App.4th 261 (2006) (independent judgment review discussed; distinguishes pure statutory challenges)
Apte v. Regents of University of California, 198 Cal.App.3d 1084 (1988) (recognizes UC’s quasi-judicial authority; substantial evidence standard)
Goldbaum v. Regents of University of California, 191 Cal.App.4th 703 (2011) (UC as statewide administrative agency; self-governance and autonomy)
Skelly v. State Personnel Board, 15 Cal.3d 194 (1975) (due process preremoval safeguards; context for agency hearing rights)
Arroyo v. Regents of University of California, 48 Cal.App.3d 793 (1975) (longstanding UC quasi-judicial employment framework)
Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn., 11 Cal.3d 28 (1974) (limits on de novo review for constitutional-origin agencies)