Public Law Case Updates
| Publication year | 2022 |
| Author | Written by Suzy Ambrose, John Appelbaum, Anais Aquino, Caroline Fowler, and Ryan Griffith |
Written by Suzy Ambrose, John Appelbaum, Anais Aquino, Caroline Fowler, and Ryan Griffith
Joseph v. City of Atwater (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 974 (filed February 9, 2022)
A hybrid employment relationship between the police chief and the city allowed the city to summarily terminate the chief as an at-will employee but required that the administrative protections of POBRA be followed when attempting to terminate the chief once he was demoted to the rank of lieutenant.
Former City of Atwater Chief of Police Samuel Joseph (Joseph) brought a petition for writ of mandate against the City of Atwater (City) alleging his termination violated the Police Officer's Bill of Rights (POBRA), specifically, California Government Code section 3304. Joseph alleged his termination process did not involve the statutory right to a hearing mutually scheduled, before a neutral hearing officer, with witnesses and cross examination of witnesses, and that there was no proof of just cause to support the termination. The City contended that Joseph had no right to such protections because he was an at-will employee. The trial court denied the writ of mandate and found that Joseph was an at-will employee based on his employment agreement with the City. The Fifth District Court of Appeal found that based on the employment agreement, he was an at-will employee as to the position of Chief of Police only, and that he retained POBRA rights as to his previous position as a Police Lieutenant.
On November 17, 2016, Joseph entered into an employment agreement with the City. It specifically provided that Joseph was an at-will employee. The agreement specified that the city manager may remove Joseph at any time, for any reason. If for any reason other than willful misconduct in office or conviction of a crime of moral turpitude, Joseph had the right to return to his previous position as Police Lieutenant or terminate his employment completely and receive four months' pay.
On September 28, 2018, the city manager sent Joseph a notice of intended termination for willful and other misconduct, including five policy violations and three California Penal Code violations, and described four types of willful misconduct and four other mismanagement issues. The notice described Joseph's right to appeal, including a neutral arbitrator at the City's expense, and that the process would not be a full evidentiary hearing. The notice stated that Joseph had until October 10, 2018, to indicate his intent to appeal the termination. Joseph objected to the hearing procedure as failing to conform with POBRA. Because Joseph and the City were unable to come to terms on the hearing procedure, no hearing was held. Joseph was terminated on November 15, 2018. Joseph filed a writ of administrative mandate that was denied by the trial court, which found that he was an at-will employee based on the language in the employment agreement.
The appellate court focused on the characterization of Joseph's employment. The employment agreement specified that the City's right to terminate his employment was limited to "the position of Police Chief," and included language about Joseph's right to return to his previous position as a lieutenant. The appellate court determined that the plain meaning of the language was that Joseph's employment was at-will as to the position of police chief only. The remainder of the "termination clause" went on to characterize Joseph's ability to return to his previous position, thus the court concluded that not all Joseph's rights to employment were at-will.
[Page 53]
The appellate court also examined the parties' disagreement as to the procedure afforded Joseph under POBRA. It concluded that POBRA does not define an administrative appeal, and that cases interpreting it do not specify how the appeal process should be implemented, but rather left that to the local agency. The appellate court examined Joseph's particular grievances with the appeal procedure as proposed by the City, including the selection of a hearing officer and selection of hearing dates, and did not find that they were inherently unfair. The appellate court directed the trial court to vacate its order and issue a writ of mandate directing the City to set aside the November 2018 Notice of Termination and provide Joseph with the opportunity for an administrative appeal.
People v. Padilla-Martel, et al. (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 139 (filed April 29, 2022)
A stay away order barring known drug dealers from entering a neighborhood is not an authorized remedy under public nuisance law or unfair competition law and violates the constitutional right to intrastate travel because of the size of the exclusion zone.
The City of San Francisco (City) filed a civil action against a group of four individuals (Defendants) who were engaged in street-level drug dealing in the Tenderloin neighborhood of San Francisco. The civil action alleged that Defendants' drug dealing created a public nuisance and violated the unfair competition law, California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (UCL) and moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from entering the Tenderloin. The request was expansive and included a 50-block exclusion zone with exceptions only for: riding on public transportation (but not getting on or off); using the sidewalk for federal court appearances; and scheduled visits to particular locations to conduct specified lawful business with the City's advance written stipulation. Civil penalties for violating the injunction were up to $6,000 per violation, and the penalties for violating the UCL were up to $2,500 per violation. The City supported the request with information from the San Francisco Police Department and community members that described the dangerousness of the Tenderloin, and the increase of drug dealing...
To continue reading
Request your trial