Public Sector Case Notes
| Jurisdiction | California,United States |
| Author | By J. Scott Tiedemann and Shardé C. Thomas |
| Publication year | 2016 |
| Citation | Vol. 30 No. 5 |
By J. Scott Tiedemann and Shardé C. Thomas
Scott Tiedemann is the Managing Partner of Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, California's largest public sector labor, employment, and education law firm. He is the author of the CPER Pocket Guide to the Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights, as well as a chapter on that topic in California Public Sector Employment Law. Shardé Thomas provides representation and legal counsel to employers pertaining to the Affordable Care Act, education, and employment law matters.
Department of Corrections & Rehab. v. State Personnel Bd. (Iqbal), 247 Cal. App. 4th 700 (2016)
The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBR), specifically Government Code section 3304, provides that employers cannot take punitive action against an officer if the investigation of an allegation against the officer is not completed within one year of the employer's discovery of the allegation. Section 3304 tolls the one-year statute of limitations during a pending criminal investigation or criminal prosecution regarding the same allegation. In this case, the court of appeal analyzed whether section 3304 requires that an independent agency conduct a criminal investigation to toll the statute of limitations for punitive action under the POBR.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) employed Shiekh Iqbal as a Parole Agent. Iqbal contacted a Union City Police Department (UCPD) dispatcher and asked her to check the criminal history information of a personal acquaintance. CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) became aware of allegations that Iqbal accessed the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS) for personal purposes. OIA assigned an investigator to conduct a criminal investigation. When OIA interviewed Iqbal for the criminal investigation, the investigator informed him that the investigation could result in criminal liability. The investigation report determined there were chargeable misdemeanor offenses, but the district attorney declined to prosecute. OIA closed the criminal investigation and opened an administrative investigation.
CDCR's administrative investigation determined that discipline was warranted and CDCR served Iqbal with a Notice of Adverse Action to reduce his salary by five percent for one year. CDCR served the Notice of Adverse Action one year and three days after discovering the alleged misconduct.
Iqbal appealed to the State Personnel Board (SPB), which revoked the discipline on statute of limitations grounds under the POBR. The SPB ruled that the tolling otherwise permitted during a "criminal investigation" of misconduct did not apply because CDCR conducted the criminal investigation itself, rather than having it done by an independent agency. Therefore, CDCR missed the one-year deadline. CDCR filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus. The trial court rejected the SPB's decision that the statute of limitations was not tolled and granted CDCR's writ petition.
Iqbal appealed and the court of appeal determined that the plain language of section 3304 did not impose any restrictions on who conducts the criminal investigation in order to toll the statute of limitations. The court held that the limitations period was tolled during CDCR's criminal investigation and that the Notice of Adverse Action was timely.
The court first analyzed California Correctional Peace Officers Ass'n v. California, 82 Cal. App. 4th 294 (2000) (CCPOA), which held that the criminal investigations referred to in sections 3303 and 3304 must be those conducted primarily by outside agencies, without significant active involvement or assistance by the employer. The court noted that the CCPOA court clarified in a footnote that it was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial