231 Cal. App. 4th 459
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Earl, a parole agent, was disciplined by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for an allegedly unlawful entry/search.
- The Board upheld the discipline after an administrative proceeding and the trial court denied administrative mandamus.
- The Department learned of Earl’s conduct during a May 27, 2009 hearing about another employee and served a Letter of Intent by certified mail on May 27, 2010.
- Earl contends notice was untimely because actual notice within one year of discovery is required under POBRA, not mere mail service.
- Amici curiae join Earl in contending that notice must be actual within the year, not constructive by mail.
- The court holds that actual notice within the year is required and reverses, directing dismissal of the Board’s action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of notice under 3304(d) | Earl argues actual notice within a year. | Department argues mail service suffices under 18575. | Notice must be actual within the year. |
| Impact of Mays and Sulier on notice method | Mays/Sulier support mail notice. | Statutes require actual notice within year. | Mays/Sulier do not justify mail-only notice; actual notice required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mays v. City of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2008) (notice within one-year deadline is about informing that discipline may be taken, not fixed discipline)
- Sulier v. State Personnel Bd., 125 Cal.App.4th 21 (Cal.App.4th 2004) (notice within one year; avoid importing 19574 into 3304(d))
- Hoschler v. Sacramento City Unified School Dist., 149 Cal.App.4th 258 (Cal.App.4th 2007) (personal service preferred when method of notice is silent)