22 Cal. App. 5th 16
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Matthew Squire (sergeant) and Ernesto Masson (lieutenant) received written reprimands dated May 22, 2014 arising from conduct between Sept 2008 and May 31, 2013; they refused to sign and the May 2014 reprimands were not placed in personnel files.
- Both officers filed formal grievances under their MOU. Chief La Berge held grievance hearings on July 22, 2014, denied the grievances but found the original Manual section citation inaccurate and directed modification to a different Manual section (3-01/122.05).
- Before formal decision letters issued, the Department presented revised written reprimands to appellants in Sept. 2014 (signed late Sept/early Oct 2014) that bore the original May 22, 2014 date and were placed in personnel files; appellants again refused to sign.
- Appellants sought a writ of mandate to rescind and purge the Sept. 2014 reprimands as time-barred under POBRA’s one-year investigation limit (Gov. Code § 3304(d)); trial court denied the writ, finding Sept. 2014 reprimands were modifications stemming from the grievance process and thus timely.
- On appeal, the court affirmed: it held the May 2014 reprimands constituted timely notice of proposed discipline under § 3304(d), the grievance procedure was predisciplinary under § 3304(e), and the Sept. 2014 reprimands were modifications (not new discipline) arising from that procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dept. complied with POBRA § 3304(d) notice-within-one-year requirement | May 2014 reprimands did not adequately notify of the discipline actually imposed; Sept. 2014 reprimands were new and untimely | May 2014 reprimands were timely notice of proposed discipline; appellants waived contest; Sept. 2014 forms were modifications after grievance | The May 2014 reprimands amounted to timely notice; appellants effectively waived the technical objection and did not dispute timeliness below. |
| Whether the Sept. 2014 reprimands are governed by the one-year limitations period | Sept. 2014 reprimands are new discipline and must meet § 3304(d) deadline | Grievance procedures are predisciplinary; § 3304(e) excludes response/procedure time from the one-year limit, so Sept. 2014 reprimands are outside that limit | Because appellants invoked the grievance process, § 3304(e) applies and the Sept. 2014 reprimands are not time-barred. |
| Whether Sept. 2014 reprimands constitute new or different discipline | Sept. reprimands charged different misconduct and changed Manual sections, so they are new discipline | Both sets concern the same underlying failure-to-report supervisory duties and the level of discipline (written reprimand) did not increase | The Sept. reprimands did not change the essential misconduct or severity; they were corrections/modifications, not new discipline. |
| Request for civil penalties and sanctions | Seek $25,000 penalties under Gov. Code § 3309.5(e) for malicious violation; ask for sanctions on appeal | County opposed and sought costs; did not seek sanctions below | Court found no POBRA violation, denied penalties request, and declined to impose appellate sanctions; County entitled to appellate costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baggett v. Gates, 32 Cal.3d 128 (1982) (POBRA sets basic rights employers must afford peace officers)
- Jackson v. City of Los Angeles, 111 Cal.App.4th 899 (2003) (POBRA balances agency interests and officer fair treatment; speedy adjudication important)
- Mays v. City of Los Angeles, 43 Cal.4th 313 (2008) (one-year limitation for completing investigations; interpreted notice requirement pre-2010 amendment)
- Neves v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 203 Cal.App.4th 61 (2012) (discusses 2010 amendment to § 3304(d) requiring articulation of proposed discipline)
- Earl v. State Personnel Bd., 231 Cal.App.4th 459 (2014) (addresses § 3304(d) amendment and notice content)
- Khan v. Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System, 187 Cal.App.4th 98 (2010) (standard of review in mandamus cases)
- Alameida v. State Personnel Bd., 120 Cal.App.4th 46 (2004) (POBRA’s speedy-adjudication protection explained)
- Tisher v. California Horse Racing Bd., 231 Cal.App.3d 349 (1991) (failure to brief an issue constitutes waiver)
- Franz v. Board of Medical Quality Assurance, 31 Cal.3d 124 (1982) (failure to raise an issue in trial court is waiver)