 |
Newsletters
CASE LAW UPDATE
L.A.P.D.'s administrative appeal process for officers reassigned to a lower pay grade or deselected from bonus positions violates Due Process and the Public Safety's Procedural Bill of Rights Act. As expected, the Court of Appeal agreed with the League, holding that the Department's policy of placing the burden of proof on the officer violated Due Process. The law is well settled in disciplinary cases that the burden of proving good cause for punitive action rests on the employer. Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 85.
Due Process is violated where an employer unilaterally selects and pays for a hearing officer to hear a disciplinary appeal. The Court reasoned that a hearing officer would have a pecuniary interest (future work) to favor the employer. Haas v. County of San Bernardino, (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 1017.
Under POBR, an officer accused of misconduct is entitled to all investigatory materials including tape-recorded interviews of witnesses and notes taken by investigators. San Diego Police Officers Association v. City of San Diego, (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th 779.
Civil Service Commission may not place a burden of proof on a deputy to refute allegations of misconduct. Additionally, it is up to the deputy or officer to decide whether a civil service hearing is open or closed to the public. Caloca v. County of San Diego, (2002) 102 Cal. App. 4th 433.
Under POBR officers are entitled to view and respond to any adverse comment in any file used for personnel purposes, including information on an internal affairs index card involving a complaint for which no discipline was imposed. Sacramento Police Officers Assn. v. Venegas, (2002) 101 Cal. App. 4th 916.
In unions with agency shop, providing non-members with financial statements prepared only by union officials does not satisfy disclosure requirements. Unions must provide agency-shop non-members with statements of chargeable and non-chargeable expenses, together with independent verification that the expenses were actually incurred. Harik v. California Teachers Assn., (2002) 298 F.3d 863.
|
