203 Cal. App. 4th 61
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- POBRA 3304(f) requires 30-day written notice of discipline decision after the agency’s decision, unless the officer is unavailable.
- Department served Neves with a Sulier notice Dec 30, 2009 stating investigation complete and that discipline may be taken, with a recommended penalty of dismissal.
- Notice of Adverse Action dated Jan 27, 2010 formalized the discipline decision to dismiss Neves, with a scheduled effective date.
- Neves received the adverse-action notice Feb 1–2, 2010, within 30 days of the Jan 27 decision.
- Superior court granted mandamus, but appellate court reversed, holding 30-day clock runs from the agency’s final decision, not from the Sulier notice, and no 3304(f) violation.
- Amendment to 3304(d) effective 2010 is not controlling here; Sulier notice can align with current law, but the factual trigger was the Jan 27, 2010 decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did 3304(f)’s 30-day limit run from the final decision date? | Neves: 30 days started Dec 30, 2009 Sulier notice. | Department: clock began with the final decision (Jan 27, 2010). | No violation; clock started Jan 27, 2010. |
| Does Sulier (3304(d)) notice satisfy 3304(f) timing? | Sulier notice prematurely frames discipline; not a final decision. | Sulier is preliminary; 3304(f) follows final decision. | Sulier does not control timing; final decision governs 30-day notice. |
| Is the 2010 amendment to 3304(d) applicable? | Not applicable; amended version not retroactively controlling here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sulier v. State Personnel Bd., 125 Cal.App.4th 21 (Cal. App. 2004) (clarifies two-step notice under 3304(d) and timing of formal adverse action under 3304(f))
- Mays v. City of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.4th 313 (Cal. 2008) (interprets 3304(d) timing and the meaning of 'proposed disciplinary action' and discovery window)
- Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 (Cal. 1982) (POBRA framework and officer rights in investigations)
- White v. County of Sacramento, 31 Cal.3d 676 (Cal. 1982) (POBRA procedural protections context)