Issue
In Seligsohn v. Day, (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9795, Cal.App. 1 Dist., Aug. 10, 2004), the California Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether a community college was required to disclose complaints of harassment by police officers to the officers under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
Facts
Ray Castillo and Michael Seligsohn worked as police officers for the City College of San Francisco (College). While Castillo was investigating a matter pertaining to a faculty member at the College, a complaint was filed alleging that he harassed and discriminated against the faculty member because of his national origin and religion. The College’s Office of Affirmative Action (OAA) sent a letter to Castillo, his supervisor, and administrative personnel at the College informing them of the complaint. The OAA also held a meeting at which they questioned Castillo about the complaint. Although Castillo and his attorney repeatedly requested a copy of the complaint, the College never produced the complaint. The complaint was ultimately withdrawn. Seligsohn was accused of racial discrimination and harassment by a student at the College. Seligsohn also requested a copy of the complaint against him and the notes and reports used by the OAA while questioning him about the alleged incident which gave rise to the complaint. The College did not provide the requested documents.
Castillo and Seligsohn asked the superior court to order the College to produce the written complaints and other documents. The superior court denied their requests.
Appellate Court Decision
Sections 3305 and 3306 of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act guarantee public safety officers the right to review any adverse comment placed in their personnel file “or any other file used for any personnel purposes by his employer” and to file a written response. The Court found that sections 3305 and 3306 apply to the documents requested by Castillo and Seligsohn. The Court rejected the College’s assertion that the Act did not apply in this case because the files of the OAA are separate and distinct from the College’s personnel files and copies of complaints are not provided to the human resource department unless and until disciplinary action is taken. Previous holdings by California courts construed the language of section 3305 broadly to include not only personnel files, but files kept separately from personnel files. It emphasized that the “label placed on the investigation is irrelevant.” An adverse comment may not directly result in disciplinary action, but it could create an “adverse impression” that could affect future personnel decisions.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.