DOJ Special Agents Sue to Stop Budget Cuts

The Association of Special Agents - Department of Justice filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint to stop the state from laying off approximately 200 special agents.  The layoffs threaten to close over two thirds of BNE task forces.  According to the petition, the layoffs are an infringement of the Attorney General's constitutional and statutory authority to determine the DOJ's functions and allocate resources within the Department.  The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief.  Mastagni Law attorneys David P. Mastagni, David E. Mastagni and Isaac S. Stevens represent ASA-DOJ in the action.

Court Upholds Peace Officers' Right to Sue Over Dissemination of Personnel Records

In Olivera et al. v. Siemens, et al., Case No. S-CV-0029390, the Placer County Superior Court upheld peace officers' right to seek redress for dissemination of their personnel records, overruling a city's demurrer.  The officers filed suit for invasion of privacy after a former IA sergeant took and distributed a copy of their IA files to officers at another agency.  The city then filed a demurrer, challenging the ability of peace officers to bring a civil suit over disclosure of their personnel files. The Court found the officers could proceed with their claims for invasion of privacy and intrusion into private affairs, noting the alleged dissemination of their personnel records was "sufficiently outrageous" to trigger liability under Hernandez v. Hillsides, Inc. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 272.

The Court also upheld the officers' right to proceed with their claims on intentional infliction of emotion distress, negligent infliction of emotion distress, and injunctive relief ordering the defendants to retrieve and destroy unlawfully disseminated records.  The plaintiffs are represented in the matter by Mastagni Law attorneys David E. Mastagni, James B. Carr and Isaac S. Stevens. 

California Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision Affirming Public Employees' Vested Rights

In Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (November 21, 2011) 2011 WL 5829598, a unanimous California Supreme Court ruled public employees can receive constitutionally-protected vested rights by way of implied contract terms.  The holding means public employers can be liable for promises made to employees, even if they do not formally adopt them by ordinance.  The case has been closely watched for its broad implications on labor relations, employee compensation, and pension benefits.

The case arose after Orange County substantially increased the cost of retirees' health insurance premiums by splitting retirees into a separate pool from active employees for calculating premiums.  The retirees filed suit in federal court, arguing they have a vested right to premiums calculated from a joint pool.  The County claimed the retirees have no vested rights because the MOUs under which they retired did not expressly indicate how the cost of retiree health benefits would be calculated.  The District Court sided with County, finding the County could not be liable because it did not explicitly confer vested rights through an ordinance.  The retirees appealed and the federal Court of Appeals asked the California Supreme Court to decide the issue.

The Court held the County could be held liable for its promises to employees, regardless of whether it expressly adopted them through an ordinance.  The Court reasoned employees could hold their employer accountable for the implied terms of a contract, such as the duration of a benefit.  As a result, the Court concluded, "[w]hether an implied term creates vested rights... is a matter of the parties' intent" and general contract principles apply to determine the intent.

The Court went on to reject the County's argument that vesting should be treated differently, noting "[n]either County nor amici curiae [] offer any legal authority for this distinction."  As a result, the Court concluded, "[v]esting remains a matter of the parties' intent."  Once intent is established, the implied terms are treated as part of the contract and are protected by the Contract Clause of the California and federal constitutions.

Court Blocks Dissidents' Attempt to Split Correctional Peace Officers' Union

The Santa Clara County Superior Court blocked an attempt by dissident union members to split the Santa Clara County Correctional Peace Officers' Association in two.  In May 2011, a minority of SCCCPOA board members, including the vice president, formed a rival union and filed a petition to represent new peace officer classifications.  The petition was filed months after the window period for decertification and unit modification petitions.

However, rather than reject the untimely petition, the County began to process the petition and attempted to schedule a decertification election even though SCCCPOA and the County were in the middle of contract negotiations.  The County claimed it should be excused from following the established window period because it was impossible for the rival group to comply and asserted the County could ignore the rules in special circumstances.  SCCCPOA then filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate to compel the county to reject the untimely petition.

The Court granted SCCCPOA's petition, rejecting the County's claims.  First, the Court found the local rules establishing window periods for unit modification and decertification petitions are mandatory.  Second, the Court noted there is no "impossibility" exception to Government Code section 3507.1, which requires local agencies to follow their local rules adopted pursuant to the MMBA.  Finally, the Court held the MMBA does not permit case-specific decisions to ignore local rules.  As a result, the Court agreed to issue a writ of mandate compelling the County to reject and refuse to process the rival group's petition.  Mastagni Law attorneys David P. Mastagni, Kathleen N. Mastagni Storm, and Jeffrey R. A. Edwards represented SCCCPOA in the action.

Court Allows Civil Rights Suit to Proceed Against Police Officer Who Calibrated Intoxilyzer Machine

In Molina-Aviles v. District of Columbia (D.D.C., November 14, 2011) 2011 WL 5517044, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. denied a motion to dismiss brought by a police officer accused of failing to properly calibrate an Intoxilyzer 5000EN machine.  The plaintiffs, several DUI defendants, claim the machine generated readings approximately 30% higher than a person's actual blood alcohol level and sued the officer in his personal capacity.  The court let the suit proceed against the officer personally because the plaintiffs alleged the officer knew his calibration methods were faulty, but continued to use them.