50 Cal.App.5th 129
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Christopher Trejo was hired as a Deputy Sheriff Generalist on February 23, 2014, subject to a 12‑month probation under Los Angeles County Civil Service Rules.
- Four months into probation Trejo was relieved of duty during a use‑of‑force investigation, issued a civilian ID, stripped of badge/gun and reassigned to a records (administrative) position; he remained paid but did not perform three of the five deputy sheriff "essential duties."
- The Sheriff’s Department issued a letter (Aug. 4, 2014) purporting to ‘‘extend’’ Trejo’s 12‑month probation for the duration of his modified assignment; Trejo was terminated on January 20, 2016 as a probationary employee and was not afforded Skelly pre‑disciplinary rights.
- Trejo sought a Lubey name‑clearing hearing and then pursued an appeal to the Civil Service Commission; the Commission declined on timeliness/ jurisdictional grounds and did not decide whether Trejo had attained permanent status.
- Trejo filed a writ of mandate in superior court arguing the Department’s practice violated Civil Service Rule 12.02(B) when read with the Rule 2.01 definition of "actual service;" the trial court granted relief, ordering reinstatement/backpay and that Skelly and an administrative appeal be provided if punitive action were to follow. The County appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department may lawfully "extend" a deputy's 12‑month probation by reassigning the deputy under investigation to an administrative/modified position | Trejo: Rule 2.01 defines "actual service" as time engaged in duties of a position (including paid absences); reassignment to another County position counts as actual service so probation cannot be extended by such reassignment | County: "Absent from duty" means absence from the deputy sheriff duties for which hired; time in modified/admin duties is "time away," so Rule 12.02(B) allows recalculation/extension | Court: Read rules together; "actual service" (Rule 2.01) governs. Time spent performing duties of another County position counts toward probation, so reassignment to modified duties did not lawfully extend Trejo's probation—he became permanent after 12 months. |
| Whether Trejo failed to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking mandamus | Trejo: No adequate administrative remedy existed—Commission lacks authority to interpret the Rules and MOU arbitration expressly excludes interpretation of Civil Service Rules | County: Trejo should have appealed under Rule 12.05 via departmental grievance or MOU arbitration (ERCOM) before suing | Court: Trejo did not fail to exhaust because the Commission lacked jurisdiction to decide interpretive disputes and the MOU/ERCOM arbitration is precluded from ruling on interpretation of the Rules, so no adequate administrative forum existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Cal.3d 194 (1975) (establishes pretermination procedural rights for permanent public employees)
- Amezcua v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Com., 44 Cal.App.5th 391 (2019) (held a paid "stay at home" during investigation can constitute "time away" allowing probation extension)
- Birdsall v. Carrillo, 231 Cal.App.3d 1426 (1991) (probationary employees serve at the pleasure of the employer and may be rejected without a hearing)
- Lubey v. City & County of San Francisco, 98 Cal.App.3d 340 (1979) (liberty‑interest/Lubey hearing to clear name for discharged probationary officers)
- Zuniga v. Los Angeles County Civil Service Com., 137 Cal.App.4th 1255 (2006) (Civil Service Commission lacks authority to decide interpretive disputes over the Rules)
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (2005) (exhaustion requires termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review)