In Morgado v. City & County of San Francisco, published June 27, 2017, the First District Court of Appeal, Division 4 affirmed a trial court decision granting a terminated nonprobationary police officer injunctive relief. The Chief of Police filed a disciplinary complaint against the plaintiff officer. A commisioner of the city's Police Commission held an evidentiary hearing on the complaint. The officer participated in it. Later, the officer, represented by counsel, participated in a hearing before the full Commission. At the conclusion, the Commission sustained four of the six misconduct claims against the officer, and decided to terminate his employment. The officer sued for injunctive relief and an administrative writ of mandate directing the city to reinstate him. The court issued an injunction directing the city to vacate the termination and to provide him with an administrative appeal from the decision terminating him.
The appellate court affirmed this decision. The Peace Officer's Bill of Rights includes Government Code section 3304, subdivision (b), which provides that no punitive action shall be undertaken by any public agency against any peace officer without providing the officer the opportunity for an administrative appeal. The city contended that the Chief's disciplinary complaint was a punitive action, and that the Commission proceedings were the administrative appeal. The appellate court did not disagree with these propositions. It held, however, that section 3304 also required the city to permit the officer an administrative appeal from the termination. There may be multiple steps in a disciplinary action that amount to "punitive actions" under the POBRA that trigger the right to appeal. The court did not hold that the city must provide multiple administrative appeals during a single disciplinary proceeding against an officer. But providing a hearing that could be considered an administrative appeal in the middle of the proceeding does not excuse the municipality from providing the officer an opportunity to administratively appeal the ultimate disciplinary decision at the end of the proceeding. The court also declined to hold that the city had to provide the officer with another evidentiary hearing, or that a body separate from the Commission must provide the hearing. The court declined to specify the sort of administrative appeal to be provided. The hearing provided met some of the requirements of an administrative proceeding, by allowing the officer to create a record and by providing for administrative findings. But the appeal provided must give the officer the opportunity to convince the municipality to reverse the ultimate disciplinary decision.
Comments