 |
Newsletters
Grievance Results in Lawsuit
by Michael D. Lackie
Lackie, Dammeier & McGill APC
A fourteen-year veteran of the Carlsbad Police Department was transferred to the prestigious Narcotic Task Force after being selected from a pool of highly-qualified candidates. Vicious rumors began circulating in the department and other agencies concerning her appointment, including allegations the officer was selected based solely on her gender, that she was going to be fired for not doing her work and that the department had placed her under surveillance. The rumor-mongering soon escalated to a point where she was having a difficult time in her professional relations within the task force and with members of other agencies.
The officer filed a grievance with the City of Carlsbad asking the police department to look into the rumors and put an end to them. The grievance was not taken seriously and her department's investigation into the rumors was shoddy, to say the least.
The officer moved the grievance to the Chief's office, where a so-called "independent investigator" was called to look into the matter. That investigation of the grievance on the surface appeared to be comprehensive. However, the rumors persisted despite assurances from the Chief that he did what he could to stop them.
As part of the grievance procedure, Carlsbad officers are permitted to have a independent board hear the grievance through the taking of evidence and provide advisory conclusions and directions to the City Manager. In preparation for that hearing, the officer requested a copy of the report prepared by the outside investigator. The department refused to give her a copy of the report. In addition, City officials told the officer that they would not permit her to move her grievance to the Personnel Board because, in the City's opinion, her grievance was over.
The officer brought the matter to Michael Lackie of Lackie, Dammeier & McGill APC. The City initially claimed that the officer could not have the report because statements given to the investigator were confidential. Next, the City placed the investigators report in the officer's personnel file and then claimed that she could not have it because it was a peace officer record protected by section 1043 of the Evidence Code and, thus, not discoverable absent a Pitchess motion. As for the Personnel Board hearing, the City simply claimed it had the ability to stop grievances in their tracks whenever it felt like it.
Michael Lackie filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the San Diego County Superior Court asking that the grievance be moved to the Personnel Board and order the City to stop interfering with the officer's rights pursuant to the grievance procedure.
The Court ruled in favor of the officer and ordered the City to move her grievance to a hearing before the Board. The Court found no justification in any of the City's arguments that it could decide when a grievance was meritorious or when there is nothing more the City could do to satisfy the grievant. At least in Carlsbad, moving a grievance through the various procedural steps is in the control of the officer, not the department or the City.
As a result of the victory, the City realized it would have to disclose the investigator's report to both the officer and the hearing body. Ultimately, the officer received the investigator's report and was able to satisfactorily resolve her grievance.
|
