In Bedard v. City of Los Angeles, published October 31, 2024, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 3 affirmed a trial court decision denying in part and granting in part a petition for administrative mandate. In 2021, the defendant city passed an ordinance that required that all city employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or request an exemption by a specified date. Employees with medical conditions/restrictions or sincerely-held religious beliefs would qualify for exemption. An exempt employee was subject to weekly testing during work hours at no cost. Employees could not opt out of getting vaccinated without a specified exemption. In an agreement with the union to which the plaintiff belonged, the city extended the compliance deadline; that between the original deadline and the new deadline, the employee would pay for interim testing, which would not occur during work hours; and that an employee terminated for noncompliance could seek reemployment subject to the vaccination requirements, or could resign or retire and be eligible for rehire after the vaccination order was lifted. The plaintiff never submitted documentation showing she had been vaccinated or had applied for an exemption and would be tested. On November 5, 2021, she was given a notice that if she did not meet all of the requirements, including showing proof of being fully vaccinated by the due date of December 18, 2021, she would be placed off-duty and served with written notice of separation. She refused to sign the notice. On November 7, 2021, the plaintiff sent an e-mail to her superior stating she would not be vaccinated. She did not mention any religious or medical reason. On November 16, 2021, the agency served the plaintiff with a complaint and relief from duty. She was temporarily relieved of duty on November 17, 2021, pending a Board of Rights hearing. The Board of Rights, after a hearing, found that the plaintiff failed to comply with the ordinance by refusing to be vaccinated, not seeking an exemption, and refusing to sign the notice. The Board further concluded the plaintiff had not been given sufficient time to respond to the charges, in violation of Skelly, and awarded her back pay form the date of her discipline to the time the discipline was validated. The chief of police stated he would not comply with the back pay order, finding that the Board did not have jurisdiction to award back pay. The plaintiff petitioned for administrative mandate. The trial court made findings of fact affirming the plaintiff's dismissal, but granting the petition to the extent the plaintiff sought back pay.
The appellate court ruled that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings. It further ruled that the Board did not abuse its discretion by terminating the plaintiff for failing to comply with the vaccination policy. The vaccination requirement's objective was to protect the city's workforce and the public from a dangerous illness during a global pandemic. The plaintiff's refusal to vaccinate placed her, her coworkers, and the public with whom she interacted while on duty at a significant risk of harm. The severity of her conduct warranted the severity of the discipline. The court further rejected the plaintiff's argument that the Skelly violation the Board and trial court found required reinstatement rather than back pay as a remedy. The plaintiff did not cite any law to support her contention that reinstatement was an available remedy for the due process violation. Further, although the plaintiff contended she would have been able to avoid termination if she had the full 30 days to respond to the charges, she offered no credible explanation of how she could avoid termination since she refused to vaccinate and did not fall under an exemption.
Comments