In Gonzalez v. City of Los Angeles, (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 1034, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the City of LA satisfied Government Code 3304 because termination was identified as the recommended punitive action at all levels of the disciplinary process and therefore, the officers had notice of the proposed discipline, even though there was an automatic de novo review of the evidence to support the termination by an administrative board.
Background
This consolidated opinion involved the Los Angeles Police Department’s (“LAPD”) discipline of two officers. Officer Gonzales was subject to an internal investigation concluding his actions merited 10 days suspension. Following a supplemental hearing, it was determined his actions merited removal. Officer Uch was subjected to nearly identical disciplinary procedures and it was determined his actions also merited removal. Under the City of Los Angeles (“City”) Charter, removal action automatically triggered an additional hearing in front of the Board of Rights. As such, the ultimate punitive action for each officer was a hearing in front of the Board of Rights. In both instances, the Board sustained the Chief and Captain’s recommendations that removal was proper.
The officers each filed suit against the City claiming that they were denied their right to an opportunity for an administrative appeal. The officers based their argument on the premise that the termination was “proposed” rather than imposed. And, since the Board of Rights ultimately “imposed” termination, the officers ought to have a post-discipline appeal. The trial court agreed with the officers, and the City appealed.
Holding
The Court of Appeal distinguished this case from Morgado v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1 (Morgado) and held the City’s actions complied with Government Code section 3304, ultimately reversing the trial court’s holding
In Morgado, the officer was facing discipline following a citizen complaint. Under that city’s charter, the police chief was authorized to either impose an up to 10-day suspension, or, to file a complaint with the police commission for harsher sanctions. The chief opted to file a complaint. The police commission held a hearing and ultimately decided to terminate Morgado’s employment. Morgado had no opportunity attempt to convince that city to reverse its decision after hearing what it was for the first time from the commission. Consequently, the court in that case held the city it failed to meet its obligations under Section 3304.
The Court of Appeal differentiated this case by pointing out “LAPD identified removal as the specific sanction long before the Board hearing,” in the initial hearings. Where the officers were aware of the punitive action imposed in each initial hearing and the initial hearing administrators had the authority to take the punitive action, the Board of Rights hearing was an opportunity for administrative appeal because it was an evidentiary hearing in front of a neutral fact finder reviewing de novo.
The Court of Appeal held that the focus of Section 3304 is to guarantee officers the right to be heard in “an evidentiary hearing before a neutral fact finder” and given “an opportunity to establish a formal record of the circumstances surrounding termination and attempt to convince the employing agency to reverse its decision.” Here, the Board of Rights hearing met these standards. It was immaterial that, under the City Charter, the Board of Rights hearing was automatically triggered. Indeed, the Court noted that the City Charter’s automatic trigger actually guaranteed more protection than required by Section 3304.
Questions
If you have any questions regarding this Legal Alert, please contact the following attorneys from our office, or the attorney with whom you typically consult.
Mona Ebrahimi
mebrahimi@kmtg.com | 916.321.4597
Olivia Clark
oclark@kmtg.com | 916.321.4290