Jaramillo v. County of Orange
133 Cal. Rptr. 3d 751
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- County appeals a backpay judgment for Jaramillo covering March 17, 2004 to January 28, 2007, after his summary firing from the sheriff’s department in 2004.
- POBRA violation (no pre-termination administrative hearing) is conceded; the dispute is over whether to give preclusive effect to his 1998/2000 waivers or to post-accusation felonies.
- Jaramillo had 2007 state felony pleas and 2007 federal pleas, which affected his eligibility to serve as a law enforcement officer, and an unrelated restitution issue arose in federal court.
- Trial court awarded backpay largely funded into retirement, plus $100 in penalties for two POBRA violations; attorney fees and costs were awarded under CCP §1021.5.
- County challenges (a) after-acquired evidence and (b) unclean hands defenses, (c) waivers’ enforceability under Riverside, and (d) injunctive relief and fee awards.
- appellate consolidation: appeals from the original judgment and the final amended judgment were consolidated for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether after-acquired evidence bars backpay. | Jaramillo's post-termination wrongful conduct should limit backpay. | County argues after-acquired evidence should bar or reduce recovery. | No; backpay not precluded where wrongful acts were not established pre-termination and POBRA violation occurred. |
| Whether unclean hands bars relief. | Jaramillo’s conduct cannot bar relief because none of the misconduct related to his termination. | County contends unclean hands should bar remedies connected to misconduct. | No; unclean hands defenses do not apply given lack of nexus to the termination. |
| Whether the 1998 and 2000 waivers can be enforced to defeat POBRA protections. | Waivers were blanket, prospective, undermining POBRA and invalid as enforceable. | Limited Riverside waiver doctrine allows pre-hiring waivers that serve public purpose. | Waivers are unenforceable; they would undermine POBRA and are not within Riverside’s limited prehiring scope. |
| Whether Labor Code section 1102.5 whistleblower protection supports the judgment. | Jaramillo’s warnings to Carona fall within 1102.5, supporting retaliation claim. | Huffman conflicts with California law; warning to employer lacks nexus under federal framing. | affirmed; 1102.5 supports the finding that firing violated whistleblower protections. |
| Scope of injunctive relief under POBRA after finding a violation. | Injunction serves to prevent future POBRA violations and to uphold rights. | Injunction unnecessary where officer cannot be employed; statute rereads narrowly. | Injunction properly ordered to prevent future POBRA violations and ensure rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riverside Sheriffs’ Ass'n v. County of Riverside, 193 Cal.App.4th 20 (Cal. App. 2011) (dismissals are punitive and require administrative appeal under POBRA)
- County of Riverside v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.4th 793 (Cal. 2002) (limited waiver of POBRA rights may be enforced in prehiring context)
- Brown v. Grimes, 192 Cal.App.4th 265 (Cal. App. 2011) (unclean hands standard and its contextual application)
- Gardenhire v. Housing Authority, 85 Cal.App.4th 236 (Cal. App. 2000) (retaliation claims and whistleblower protections; direct to authority)
- Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, 263 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (federal whistleblower framework; distinction with CA law)
- New West Charter Middle School v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 187 Cal.App.4th 831 (Cal. App. 2010) (private attorney general fee award considerations)
- Riverside Sheriffs’ Ass'n v. County of Riverside, 152 Cal.App.4th 414 (Cal. App. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for fee awards under CCP §1021.5)
- Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 76 Cal.App.4th 970 (Cal. App. 1999) (unclean hands and related equitable considerations)