Hartnett v. San Diego County Office of Education
D070974
| Cal. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Hartnett, a classified employee, was terminated by the San Diego County Office of Education (Office); he appealed to the Office’s personnel commission and later filed multiple writ petitions in superior court challenging the administrative process and the merits of his dismissal.
- The personnel commission held a four-day evidentiary hearing where both parties presented documentary and oral evidence, witnesses were sworn and cross-examined, and the commission issued a 21‑page statement of findings sustaining the dismissal.
- Hartnett filed a second writ petition claiming the commission failed to "investigate the matter on appeal" as required by Education Code § 45306 (arguing the commission did not conduct a pre‑hearing investigation) and sought reinstatement and back pay.
- The trial court granted the second writ, concluding the commission had not conducted the required investigation and ordered reinstatement and back pay; the court later entered judgment awarding back pay and prejudgment interest totaling $306,954.99.
- On appeal, Office argued collateral estoppel/res judicata barred the relief, the trial court misinterpreted § 45306, and the superior court should have remanded factual back‑pay issues to the commission.
- The Court of Appeal held the commission’s full evidentiary hearing satisfied § 45306’s investigation requirement, reversed the trial court’s judgment, and directed entry of judgment for Office and Ward.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel or res judicata barred Hartnett's second writ | Hartnett contended the second writ challenged distinct procedural defects arising after the first petition | Office argued the first adjudication was final on the merits, so relitigation was barred | Court: doctrines do not apply here; the matters raised in the second writ were different and prior rulings did not decide them |
| Whether § 45306 requires a separate pre‑hearing investigation distinct from a formal hearing | Hartnett argued the statute requires the commission to conduct an independent investigation even if a hearing is held | Office argued a full evidentiary hearing (with subpoenas, testimony, cross‑examination) fulfills the statutory investigation duty | Court: § 45306 mandates an investigation but does not require it occur separately from a hearing; a hearing with fact‑finding satisfied the duty |
| Whether the trial court properly granted reinstatement and back pay because the commission failed to investigate | Hartnett contended the commission’s process was inadequate, rendering the dismissal ineffective and entitling him to remedy | Office maintained the commission investigated via the hearing and made findings, so reinstatement/back pay were not warranted | Court: because the commission investigated at the hearing, the trial court’s sole ground for relief was unsupported and reversal is required |
| Whether factual determination of back pay should have been remanded to the commission | Hartnett sought full back pay; trial court took evidence and calculated amount | Office argued the superior court lacked jurisdiction to make that factual determination and should have remanded to the commission | Court: did not decide this issue because both parties agreed that if the investigation requirement was met, no further proceedings were necessary; judgment entered for Office |
Key Cases Cited
- Ahlstedt v. Board of Education, 79 Cal.App.2d 845 (1947) (personnel commission must investigate charges on appeal even if employee waives a hearing)
- California School Employees Assn. v. Personnel Commission, 3 Cal.3d 139 (1970) (describing statutory merit‑system scheme and commission’s review authority)
- Tarrant Bell Property, LLC v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 538 (2011) (distinguishing mandatory "shall" from discretionary "may" in statutory construction)
- Roberts v. City of Palmdale, 5 Cal.4th 363 (1993) (Brown Act does not apply to unilateral receipt or solitary review by individual officials; collective deliberation required for violation)