42 Cal.App.5th 1034
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Two LAPD sergeants (Caesar Gonzalez and Kosal Uch) were investigated for serious misconduct, referred to Board of Rights hearings, found guilty by unanimous Boards, and Chief Beck executed removal orders following those hearings.
- In both cases, commanding officers and Commander Webb recommended removal before the Board hearings; Chief Beck’s disciplinary complaints directed Board hearings with removal as the proposed sanction.
- Gonzalez’s and Uch’s Board hearings were de novo, evidentiary proceedings at which the officers contested charges, the Boards found multiple sustained allegations, and each Board recommended removal.
- Each chief executed the removal after receiving the Board recommendation; officers were informed of judicial-review deadlines and then petitioned for writs challenging the administrative-appeal process under POBRA §3304(b).
- The trial court, relying on Morgado, concluded the Board hearings did not satisfy POBRA because the City did not provide an administrative appeal from the final termination decision and ordered the City to provide an administrative appeal opportunity.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that under the Los Angeles Charter the Chief’s selection of removal and the mandatory Board hearing constitute the administrative appeal POBRA requires, so no additional procedure was necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether LAPD Board of Rights proceedings satisfied POBRA §3304(b)’s requirement of an administrative appeal | Gonzalez/Uch: Morgado requires an administrative appeal from the employer’s final, executed punitive action (the Chief’s removal order), which they did not receive | City: Under the Charter the Chief selected removal before the Board and the mandatory de novo Board hearing is the administrative appeal POBRA requires | Held: Board hearings satisfied §3304(b); Chief’s pre-hearing selection of removal plus mandatory Board review fulfills POBRA’s administrative-appeal requirement |
| Whether an ordered (mandatory) Board differs from an opted appeal for POBRA purposes | Plaintiffs: Because the Chief’s removal was not final until he executed it after the Board, Morgado requires a subsequent appeal from that final action | City: Ordered Board review provides stronger protection than optional appeals and gives the neutral, evidentiary review POBRA demands | Held: No distinction that invalidates the Board as an appeal; mandatory Board review meets POBRA and provides judicial-review routes post-decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Morgado v. City & County of San Francisco, 13 Cal.App.5th 1 (2017) (held officer must have administrative appeal from final termination where hearing preceded employer’s final decision)
- Jackson v. City of Los Angeles, 69 Cal.App.4th 769 (1999) (Board of Rights hearing satisfies POBRA’s administrative-appeal requirement, even when Board increases penalty)
- Binkley v. City of Long Beach, 16 Cal.App.4th 1795 (1993) (purpose of administrative appeal is to create a formal record and allow officer to attempt to reverse discipline)
- Skelly v. State Personnel Board, 15 Cal.3d 194 (1975) (right to respond to proposed adverse action before discipline imposed)
- Crupi v. City of Los Angeles, 219 Cal.App.3d 1111 (1990) (initiating Board process through chief’s recommendation satisfies POBRA administrative-appeal right)