Gray v. County of Tulare
Decision Date | 28 February 1995 |
Docket Number | No. F020753,F020753 |
Citation | 32 Cal.App.4th 1079,38 Cal.Rptr.2d 317 |
Parties | Herbert GRAY, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. COUNTY OF TULARE et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Lita O'Neill Blatner, County Counsel, Kathleen Bales-Lange and Ronald E. Rezac, Deputy County Counsel, for defendants and appellants.
Charles A. Goldwasser, Los Angeles, for plaintiff and respondent.
Herbert Gray was dismissed from his position as a captain with the Tulare County Sheriff's Department (Department) for, among other reasons, making statements in a local newspaper critical of the sheriff, Melvin Coley. Gray appealed his dismissal to the Tulare County Board of Supervisors (Board). A four-day evidentiary hearing followed before an administrative law judge who recommended to the Board that it deny the appeal. The Board adopted the recommendation, whereupon Gray filed a petition for a writ of mandate. The court granted the petition on the ground Gray's statements were protected speech and ordered a writ to issue directing the Board to set aside its action and reconsider its decision. The Board has appealed.
The question before us is whether Gray's statements were protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the reasons set forth below, we hold they were not and reverse.
Bob Wiley retired as the sheriff of Tulare County in 1991, after serving in that position for 24 years. The leading candidates in the election to succeed him were his undersheriff, Doyle Hoppert, and Melvin "Butch" Coley. Coley, a former officer in the Department, had run unsuccessfully against Wiley three times previously. He won the election in November 1990 and was sworn into office on January 7 of the following year.
Herbert Gray was one of five captains in the Department, having risen to that rank after first being hired as a deputy in 1964. Gray and three of the other four captains, Larry McLaughlin, David Whaley, and Michael Scott, openly supported Hoppert during the 1990 election campaign. The fifth captain, Richard Morris, remained neutral.
Coley entered office with a low regard for Gray and some doubts about his loyalty. These doubts, according to Coley, limited his willingness to confide in Gray but did not prevent the two men from working together. Gray, for his part, assured Coley of his support. Nonetheless, relations between Coley and Gray were strained from the beginning of the new administration.
For example, Coley made several inquiries of Gray, then age 49, about rumors he (Gray) was planning to retire. Coley also asked, during what Gray characterized as an "inquisition," about reports former Sheriff Wiley had used Department staff to follow him (Coley) and tap his phones during previous elections. And, a few weeks after taking office, Coley reassigned Gray from investigations to administration while transferring what had previously been the administrative captain's biggest single responsibility, budgeting, to someone else. Gray interpreted these actions to be retaliation for his previous support of Hoppert but he did not make any formal complaint.
Gray and some of the other captains came to feel they were being excluded from any policy-making role in Coley's administration. Coley met with all the captains initially but as time passed he began to rely primarily on the senior captain, Richard Morris, and later on the newly-appointed undersheriff, Jack Tyler. Coley also sometimes bypassed the captains to consult directly with their subordinates. This practice, according to some witnesses, helped to create an atmosphere of uncertainty and mistrust within the Department. It was in this context that the present controversy arose, centering around three of Coley's actions in particular: his appointment of an undersheriff; his reassignment of Sergeant Sergio Santos; and his authorization of several internal investigations.
On March 11, 1991, Coley appointed Jack Tyler, formerly a sergeant in the Department, to serve as his undersheriff. The appointment angered some officers, including Gray, who publicly criticized Coley for selecting someone they felt lacked the necessary experience. In an article appearing on March 14 in the Tulare Advance-Register under the headline "Coley criticized on undersheriff choice," Gray was quoted as saying, The article also included critical comments by Captain Morris and Lieutenant Gary Harris. It concluded:
A similar article appeared the next day in the Fresno Bee.
According to Tyler, Coley was "very angry, very upset" about the articles "and felt like he needed to do something." However, Tyler convinced Coley not to take disciplinary action lest he (Tyler) lose the opportunity to earn the officers' confidence so soon after taking office. Consequently, no action was taken against the officers and none of them was instructed to refrain from making similar remarks in the future.
Also in March, against his captains' advice, Coley transferred Sergeant Sergio Santos from his assignment as a narcotics detective to road patrol duty. The transfer, according to Coley, was based largely on what he perceived to be a morale problem within the narcotics unit. However, Santos had also supported Hoppert during the election campaign; he regarded Coley's action as retaliatory and filed a grievance with the county personnel department. In connection with the grievance, Santos solicited written statements of support from several officers, including each of the five captains. All five provided memos attesting to Santos's qualifications and performance. Two, McLaughlin and Gray, went further and asserted the transfer was politically motivated. Gray's memo, under the heading "PERSONAL OPINION," included the following:
None of the captains discussed their memos with either Tyler or Coley before providing them to Santos. All but Gray gave their memos directly to Santos, and later provided copies to Tyler upon his request. Gray, on the other hand, sent his memo to the personnel department. Santos was later to testify he requested the memos because he had been told, as part of the grievance procedure, to submit a list of possible witnesses and a summary of their anticipated testimony. However, the personnel director denied the procedure required any such summary and described the practice of providing one as "extremely unusual."
Tyler and Coley first learned of the memos on May 9 in the course of a fact-finding interview held at the personnel department in connection with Santos's grievance. They turned the memos over to the county counsel's office for consideration as the basis for possible disciplinary action. The matter remained under evaluation until mid-July.
On July 17, Santos filed a wrongful termination suit against the county in federal district court. Copies of Gray's and Morris's memos were included in the pleadings and thus became public knowledge. Gray's memo, particularly his "personal opinion," was quoted at some length in news articles published the next day about the suit.
On July 18, Tyler served Captain McLaughlin with a notice directing him to appear for an interview to discuss his Santos memo. The notice was the first step in a disciplinary process which led eventually to McLaughlin's dismissal. Tyler served Gray with a similar notice the next day--the same day Gray's comments appeared in a local newspaper criticizing Coley for conducting internal investigations which Gray characterized as "politically motivated witch hunts."
Early in his administration, Coley ordered several investigations into allegations of impropriety involving past and present Department employees, including Gray. These allegations included the personal use of Department funds and property, tampering with a personnel examination, internal leaks which compromised a local bookmaking investigation, and secret meetings in pursuit of a plan to divest Coley of control over the jail facilities. Coley initiated the investigations without the full knowledge and participation of all the captains, or at least against their advice. Gray in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Department of Corrections v. State Personnel Bd. (Wallace)
...as disruption." (511 U.S. at pp. 680-681, 114 S.Ct. at p. 1890-1891, 128 L.Ed.2d at p. 702-703.) In Gray v. County of Tulare (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1079, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 317, a captain in the sheriff's department was terminated for, among other things, publicly charging the newly elected sher......
-
Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School Dist.
...public concern determination and the balancing of interests are subject to independent review on appeal. (Gray v. County of Tulare (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1090, 38 Cal.Rptr.2d 317.) A. Public Concern " 'Whether an employee's speech addresses a matter of public concern must be determined......
-
Kaye v. Board of Trustees of San Diego County Public Law Library
...595, 601-614 [67 Cal.Rptr.2d 268]; Campbell v. State Personnel Bd. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 281, 287-290 ; Gray v. County of Tulare (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1089-1096 ; Chico Police Officers' Assn. v. City of Chico (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 635, 642-652 ; Franklin v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ......
-
Shipman v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, F050317 (Cal. App. 1/3/2008)
...decisions about the operation of their government merits the highest degree of first amendment protection.'" (Gray v. County of Tulare (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1090.) Shipman contends his dissemination of the Bollinger documents to Storm and Alexander involved a matter of public concern ......