 |
Newsletters
Superior Court Orders San Marino Officer
Reinstated With Back Pay
By Dieter C. Dammeier
LACKIE & DAMMEIER LLP
John Crook became a reserve police officer with the City of San Marino in 1997. On January 4, 1999, Crook was hired as a full time police officer. The City, to save time and money, placed Officer Crook into the "Module D" Academy which supplements the reserve academy to provide the hours required for a basic academy certificate. From January to June of 1999, Officer Crook attended the Module D Academy 20 hours per week and worked the streets as a police officer the other 20 hours. With his hire date of January 4, 1999, Officer Crook expected his 18-month probationary period to end on July 4, 2000.
Officer Crook became actively involved in representing the Police Association at the negotiating table in May of 2000. When negotiations were going nowhere (this is before binding arbitration was in effect) the POA, led by Officer Crook became very vocal in the local press. Officer Crook initiated a survey, which was distributed to the residents of San Marino, explaining the police officers low pay and requested input from the citizens. Later that same week, an ad was placed in the local newspaper by the POA providing the citizens the same information as was put out in the survey. The day the ad was in the newspaper, Crook was put on administrative leave, allegedly in regard to an investigation of him misstating his time by ten minutes on an overtime slip. The next day Officer Crook was notified of the Department's intent to terminate him from his employment. To Officer Crook's surprise, he was informed he was being let go as a probationary employee without any right of appeal. This seemed shocking to Officer Crook since this occurred in September of 2000 and Officer Crook thought he was off probation back in July of that year.
The City claimed that while Officer Crook was in his "Module D" training he was classified as a "recruit" and therefore that period did not count toward his 18-month probationary period. Due to the obvious retaliation by the City for Officer Crook's POA activities, a tort claim was filed with the City alleging civil rights violations, while at the same time a Writ of Mandate was sought in the Superior Court seeking Officer Crook's reinstatement based on the City's erroneous position that Crook was still on probation when terminated. In both of these actions, Officer Crook was represented by Dieter Dammeier and Michael Morguess of Lackie & Dammeier LLP.
The Writ was heard in Pasadena Superior Court by Judge J. Michael Byrne. The City maintained its position that during Crooks initial six months of full time employment he was classified as a "recruit" which should not be counted toward his 18-month probationary period. We pointed out to the Court that even according to San Marino's own employment descriptions, a "recruit" does not make arrests and is a civilian position. During that initial six-month period while Crook was attending Module D he was working in the field as a regular police officer.
The Court agreed with us and concluded that Officer Crook's probationary period was completed as of July 4, 2000 and therefore he was unlawfully terminated as a probationary employee on September 25, 2000. Accordingly, the Judge ordered Officer Crook be reinstated to his position with back pay and that the City pay his attorney's fees and costs in the matter.
The Police Association financially supported Officer Crook's legal action in this case based on the clear motivation by Police and City Management to retaliate against Crook for his representation of the POA during negotiations. It should be noted that the public pressure which included the citizen surveys and press ads and releases which were initiated by Officer Crook ultimately led to the officer's receiving a 14% pay raise and the 3% @ 50 retirement during Crook's absence. Of course, with the Court's order, Crook will enjoy these benefits retroactively.
About the Author: Dieter Dammeier is an LDF Panel Attorney with the law firm of Lackie & Dammeier LLP, representing police associations in Southern California.
|
