Perez v. City of Westminster
5 Cal. App. 5th 358
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Officer Brian Perez was interviewed Nov. 25, 2007, during an internal investigation into alleged excessive force; he was not given Lybarger/Miranda advisements at that interview and the trial court found an Act violation for that interview.
- A second interview on Dec. 10, 2007 occurred with counsel present and with proper advisements; the Act protections were satisfied then.
- On Jan. 29, 2008 the department issued a notice of intent to terminate Perez for alleged dishonesty/cooperation failures, but the police chief later concluded the allegations were "Not Sustained" and rescinded termination.
- After reinstatement Perez was removed from SWAT and the honor guard and was not assigned trainees as a field training officer; the chief explained removals were due to loss of confidence, not punishment.
- Perez sued under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code §3300 et seq.), claiming the removals and failure to assign trainees were punitive/retaliatory and violated the Act and due process; the trial court found the November 25 interview violated the Act but held the collateral-duty removals and nonassignment of trainees were not punitive and did not violate the Act; it also found no malicious intent and awarded only injunctive relief (training).
Issues
| Issue | Perez's Argument | Westminster's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal from SWAT/honor guard and nonassignment of trainees constituted "punitive action" under the Act | Removals and loss of related overtime/prestige were adverse/punitive actions violating Gov. Code §3304 | Collateral assignments are managerial, not discipline; no loss of pay or rank, MOU treats nonassignment of trainees as nondisciplinary | Held: Not punitive; substantial evidence supported management decision and no statutory punitive action occurred |
| Whether removals were retaliation for exercising Act/Skelly rights | Perez argued removals were retaliatory after he asserted rights in the administrative appeal | City maintained removals were due to lost confidence in Perez's honesty/cooperation, not his exercise of rights | Held: No evidence of retaliation; removals were not taken because of Perez's exercise of Act rights |
| Whether a violation of the Act at the Nov. 25 interview required additional relief or damages | Perez sought relief for Act violation and adverse consequences from subsequent personnel actions | City acknowledged interview error but contended later corrective steps and personnel decisions cured any harm | Held: Trial court found interview violated Act but no malicious intent; denied monetary relief, ordered supervisory training injunctive relief |
| Standard of review | N/A (Perez urged reversal) | N/A (City urged affirmance) | Appellate court applied substantial evidence review and affirmed trial court findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation and warnings)
- Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822 (1985) (advisements required for officer interviews under POBR)
- Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Cal.3d 194 (1975) (pretermination hearing principles)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles, 149 Cal.App.4th 836 (2007) (reassignment without loss of pay not punitive)
- Orange County Employees Assn. v. County of Orange, 205 Cal.App.3d 1289 (1988) (transfer without financial loss not punitive)
- Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 (1982) (loss of pay/position as punitive)
- White v. County of Sacramento, 31 Cal.3d 676 (1982) (transfer to lower-paying position punitive)
- McManigal v. City of Seal Beach, 166 Cal.App.3d 975 (1985) (reassignment causing pay loss punitive)
- Doyle v. City of Chino, 117 Cal.App.3d 673 (1981) (discipline and pay reduction context)