POBRA Entitles Peace Officers to Investigation Notes and Source Materials

A recently published Appellate Court case clarifies that Section 3303 of POBRA requires public employers to disclose original source materials placed within final investigative reports prior to Skelly hearings.  

In James Davis v. County of Fresno, a supervising juvenile correctional officer was terminated. Prior to his termination, James Davis was served with a Notice of Intent to terminate, as well as, a packet of information containing an Internal Affairs Report and a 2012 Memo. Both the IA report and the 2012 Memo referenced certain attachments. The attachments were not provided to Davis.   

On appeal, Davis alleged the County’s failure to produce those documents violated his procedural due process rights that apply before his Skelly hearing.  In addition, Davis alleged the failure to produce the requested documents violated his rights under POBRA, Government Code section 3303 (g), which states a peace officer is entitled to “any reports and complaints.”

The court held materials delivered prior to Davis's Skelly hearing satisfied the requirements of due process applicable before disciplinary action was imposed, but that the County violated Davis's right under POBRA to receive “any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons.”

The court analyzed the facts under Gilbert v. Sunnyvale (2005), stating the materials provided to Davis were only required to 1) adequately explain the employer’s evidence, and; 2) provide notice of the substance of the evidence so that Davis could adequately respond at the Skelly hearing.  However, the Court suggested that Davis might have been able to carry his burden by demonstrating how his response at the Skelly hearing would be hindered by the absence of the attachments, but David never made this demonstration and the Court held Davis’s pre-removal safeguards under due process were not violated.

However, the Court interpreted the term “any reports” to include the incident reports and interview transcripts attached to a September 2012 memorandum that was authored/prepared by a special probation investigator. The Court specifically appealed to POBRA’s legislative intent that providing officers with a copy of the attachments to an investigative memorandum helps assure the integrity of the report because the officer will be able to check the source documents to determine if they are accurately described in the memorandum. Thus, interpreting the term “report” to include attachments furthers POBRA's purpose of promoting stability, integrity and public confidence in law enforcement.

This case illustrates the importance of serving disciplinary discovery requests under multiple statutory and Constitutional grounds.  Generally, public safety union members have due process discovery rights under Skelly, the MMBA, and the POBR/FFBOR.  Had Davis only requested the information under Skelly he would not have prevailed. Discovery of source materials and investigative notes are often critical in refuting the conclusions and summaries contained in disciplinary investigations.  

Court Upholds Officer's Right to Administrative Appeal of Termination

In 2008, a citizen filed a complaint against San Francisco police officer Morgado. The office of citizen complaints investigated and recommended the Chief impose discipline. The Chief agreed and submitted a complaint against the officer to the City’s police commission. After a full evidentiary hearing which the officer participated in, the Commission decided to impose termination. The officer sued the City in Morgado v. City and County of San Francisco alleging that the City violated the Public Safety Officers’ Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBR”) by failing to give him an administrative appeal of the final termination. The trial court agreed with the officer and issued an injunction vacating the termination until he had been provided the opportunity for an administrative appeal of the termination decision. The City appealed.

On appeal, the City argued that the evidentiary hearing at the Commission level effectively served as an administrative appeal of the Chief’s decision to discipline. By providing this evidentiary hearing, the City argued it fulfilled the purposes of the administrative appeal provision of POBR. The Court found a distinction between the Chief’s decision to recommend discipline and the termination actually imposed by the commission. The Court found that while there may be a right for an administrative appeal of an interim-step towards discipline, such as the Chief’s recommendation, ultimately this was not the relevant issue in this case.

The issue here was the ability to appeal the “final” imposition of discipline by the Commission. While the Commission’s evidentiary hearing fulfilled most of the purposes of an administrative appeal, the Commission’s processes ended when it made the final determination to impose discipline. The Court ruled the City should have provided an additional opportunity for independent re-examination of the imposition of termination. The Court stated that such an administrative appeal does not require the same full-scale evidentiary hearing, but merely the re-examination by someone not involved in the initial determination who will make written factual findings.

The City argued alternatively that the administrative appeal provision of POBR was unconstitutional because it restricted the constitutionally granted “plenary authority” of the City over the removal of its officers. The Court found no constitutional conflict, noting POBR constituted only a slight impingement. POBR did not proscribe reasons an officer could be terminated, rather it sets forth minimal procedural rights. The court upheld the Constitutionality of  POBR finding it was narrowly tailored to the purpose of promoting labor relations and created no substantive restrictions on the City’s ability to terminate employees. The Court of Appeal upheld the injunction and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Court of Appeal: Retirement Does Not Void Right to Arbitration

In Service Employees Intern. Union, Local 1021 v. San Joaquin County (3rd DCA, C066861) December 28, 2011, 2011 WL 6812543, the Court of Appeal found an employee’s retirement does not automatically void, or act as a waiver, of the employee’s contractual right to arbitration under an MOU.

The case arose after an employee was terminated from his job as a craft worker for allegedly stealing recyclable material. He then invoked a provision of the MOU and requested arbitration of the decision to terminate him. The employee also filed for retirement benefits. The County denied the employee’s request for arbitration, and the trial court found for the County by denying the union’s petition to compel arbitration.

On appeal, the County argued once the employee had retired from his job, he was no longer “an employee” under the MOU and had forfeited any rights to arbitration under the MOU. The Court disagreed, holding an employee’s retirement does not automatically void, or act as a waiver, of the employee’s contractual right to arbitration under an MOU. The Court found the employee appropriately invoked his right to arbitration and accordingly reversed the lower court’s denial of the petition to compel arbitration.

9th Circuit: Felony Charges Alone Do Not Justify Peace Officers' Suspension Without Pay

In Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (Aug. 12, 2011, 08-56283) 2011 WL 3524129, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found the County of Los Angeles violated peace officers’ constitutional rights by denying them a meaningful appeal of suspensions without pay. The Court found the mere fact an officer is charged with a felony is not enough to justify unpaid suspensions. Instead, a peace officer should be permitted a post-suspension appeal to challenge whether the charges are supported by valid allegations and to determine if the particular felony allegations against a suspended deputy justify suspension.

The case arose after four deputy sheriffs were charged with felonies and suspended without pay. The charges against some of them were later dropped and the others were exonerated by juries. The deputies challenged their suspensions and sought back pay, but the County refused, arguing unpaid suspensions were proper because felony charges, whether supported by valid allegations or not, were pending at the time of the suspensions. The deputies appealed, arguing they were entitled to challenge more than just the mere fact they had been charged with felonies.

Normally, peace officers are entitled to challenge discipline before it is implemented. However, courts look at felony charges somewhat differently than other types of alleged misconduct because whenever there are felony charges an independent third party has determined there is probable cause to believe the employee committed a serious crime. As a result, some courts have held employees who occupy positions of public trust and high visibility, such as peace officers, can be temporarily suspended without pre-suspension due process if felony charges are filed against them.

However, even though pre-suspension hearings may not be required under some circumstances, meaningful post-suspension hearings are required. The dispute in this case was about what the deputies had a right to challenge in their post-suspension appeal.

The County argued it did not have to let the officers challenge the basis for the felony charges because merely being charged with a felony meant the deputies could not do their jobs. The County relied on a rule allowing it to suspend employees based on a “condition which impairs an employee's qualifications for his or her position.” The Court, however, rejected this claim noting “nowhere does the rule state that a felony charge is necessarily such a ‘condition’—indeed, the rule does not mention felonies or felony charges at all.”

The Court therefore concluded the County “rendered the post-suspension hearings redundant and meaningless [and this kind of] “meaningless hearing is no hearing at all, and does not satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.”

9th Circuit: Last Chance Agreement Did Not Waive Right to Skelly Hearing

In Walls v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (9th Cir., Aug. 3, 2011, 10-15967) 2011 WL 3319442, the Ninth Circuit ruled a public employee’s Last Chance Agreement did not waive his right to a pre-termination (Skelly) hearing. Some employers use Last Chance Agreements to discipline employees and give them a “last chance.” Such agreements usually contain a provision which states if the employee violates any condition of employment, such as coming in to work late or missing a day without calling in, the employee can be terminated.

In this case, the Last Chance Agreement read in part, “non-compliance with the stipulations [of the Last Chance Agreement] will result in your immediate and final termination.” After agreeing to the Last Chance Agreement, the employee allegedly had an unexcused absence from work. The employer then moved to terminate him and did not give him a pre-termination hearing, claiming the Last Chance Agreement rendered the employee “at will,” meaning he could be terminated without just cause and the normal procedural protections that go along with it.

The Court rejected the employer’s claim. The Court recognized public employees have a property interest in their continued employment and must be provided with notice of the charges against them, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present their side of the story. In reaching its conclusion, the Court examined the Last Chance Agreement and concluded “[it] specifies and modifies what constitutes “just cause” for [] termination, [but] it does not otherwise alter the employment terms of [the employee’s] collective bargaining agreement [and] accordingly, there is no basis on which to conclude that he had become an at-will employee.”