Police officers who have been subjected to discipline may have that discipline reduced or rescinded in cases where the employer has failed to provide them with sufficient notice of intent.  This point was recently illustrated in a case involving the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department.  The Department was recently ordered to pay one of its terminated employees two years of back-pay and benefits for failing to provide that employee with sufficient notice of its intent to impose discipline.  What sets the case apart from others is that the award was not based on a Skelly or POBOR violation, but instead on the notice requirements in the County’s Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with the Sheriff’s Association.

The general Skelly pre-disciplinary notice requirement requires that the employee be provided with notice of the proposed discipline, the reasons for the proposed discipline, a copy of the charges and materials comprising the basis of the proposed discipline, and notice of the right to respond.  However, the MOU at issue required that the County provide a notice of intent to impose discipline which shall include “[a] clear and concise statement of the specific grounds and particular facts upon which the disciplinary action is based.”

In this case, the County served the officer with (1) a short statement of vague, conclusory allegations of misconduct; (2) an administrative investigation spanning over a thousand pages; and (3) approximately 75 audio tapes of interviews.  The officer was not provided with anything remotely resembling “a clear and concise statement of the specific grounds and particular facts upon which the disciplinary action [was] based” as required by the MOU. 

Despite objections being sent to the County stating that the charging document was impermissibly vague, ambiguous and failed to plainly set forth the specific acts and omissions, and the dates of occurrences of each fact of misconduct, the Department proceeded with its termination.  The officer then retained this author for representation and a petition for writ of mandate was brought against the Department for its failure to abide by the MOU.  The writ petition explained that the County’s refusal to provide the officer with sufficient notice deprived him of the ability to mount a focused, meaningful defense to the charges levied against him.  The superior court agreed that the County had violated the MOU, granted the writ of mandate, and ordered the County to pay the officer all back pay and benefits lost back to the time of the termination—over two years and several hundred thousand dollars. 

            Although the officer is certainly satisfied with the superior court’s monetary award, he nonetheless appealed the decision, and is asking the court of appeal to award full reinstatement as a remedy as well.  The officer is grateful to Lackie, Dammeier & McGill and LDF for their successful representation.  The lesson to be learned from this case:  If you are served with a notice of intent to impose discipline, review it carefully to ensure that it adheres to Department and Skelly requirements.  This attention to detail may be the key to a successful administrative appeal.