Hopper v. State Personnel Bd.
| Decision Date | 29 May 1962 |
| Parties | La Veta HOPPER, Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD; Robert S. Ash, Glenn R. Baker, Ford A. Chatters, Robert D. Gray, and Emery E. Olson, the Members of the State Personnel Board; John F. Fisher, Executive Officer of the State Personnel Board; Department of the Youth Authority; Heman G. Stark, Director of the Department of the Youth Authority, Respondents. Civ. 10221. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Benjamin D. Frantz, Sacramento, for appellant.
Stanley Mosk, Atty. Gen., by J. M. Sanderson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Sacramento, for respondent.
By mandate, petitioner sought review of an order of the State Personnel Board sustaining her dismissal as a supervising clerk in the Department of the Youth Authority, and restoration of her permanent civil service status. Respondent's demurrer to her petition was sustained without leave to amend. She now appeals from the judgment of dismissal which thereafter was entered.
Her petition alleged her status as a civil service employee for a period of approximately twenty years and that while employed by the Department of Youth Authority she received certain performance reports which were set forth in detail. Those reports contained numerous comments to the effect that the 'quality' as well as the 'quantity' of her work was 'outstanding.' She was also graded as 'outstanding in her relationships with people; she was given a like grading as to initiative, resourcefulness, ability to accept and carry out responsibility, and analytical ability of rules and law for the benefit of probation officers and judges. Some of the reports also referred to numerous communications from public officials commending her work. However, beginning with the first report, petitioner's lack of punctuality was consistently noted, and one report specifically found that her lateness for work had become a 'morale factor for the rest of the office.'
The petition admits that during the period in controversy she had been late for work, but alleged in mitigation thereof physical, mental, and domestic problems with which she had been confronted, and that her tardiness had been condoned by the Youth Authority. The petition also notes that she had been suspended for five working days because of tardiness. The petition then concludes that to invoke the extreme penalty of dismissal under such circumstances was an abuse of discretion, and prayed that she be restored to her civil service position.
The record before the board shows, and the board found, that petitioner reported late to work on some twenty occasions and was for that reason suspended for five days; that she had been admonished both orally and in writing concerning her dereliction in this regard; that following her suspension she was again warned that punitive action would be taken if she were late thereafter; and that despite such warnings she reported late for work on 34 occasions prior to the filing of the action by the Youth Authority. The record further shows, and the board also found, that she had been advised that if sh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blake v. State Personnel Board
...Bev. Control, 51 Cal.2d 84, 90, 330 P.2d 769; Brown v. Gordon, 240 Cal.App.2d 659, 666, 49 Cal.Rptr. 901; Hopper v. State Personnel Board, 204 Cal.App.2d 273, 275, 22 Cal.Rptr. 88.) Legal discretion means an impartial discretion taking into account all relevant facts, together with legal pr......
-
Wingfield v. Fielder
...of discretion. (Martin v. Alcoholic Beverage etc. Appeals Board (1959) 52 Cal.2d 287, 291, 341 P.2d 296; Hopper v. State Personnel Board (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 273, 275, 22 Cal.Rptr. 88.) In addition, it is well established that in determining whether a given penalty is arbitrary, the standa......
-
Cadilla v. Board of Medical Examiners
...Personnel Board, Supra; Martin v. Alcoholic Bev. Etc. Appeals Bd., Supra, 52 Cal.2d 287, 291, 341 P.2d 296; Hopper v. State Personnel Board, 204 Cal.App.2d 273, 275, 22 Cal.Rptr. 88), or one which is not so empowered (Magit v. Board of Medical Examiners, 57 Cal.2d 74, 87--88, 17 Cal.Rptr. 4......
-
Vielehr v. State Personnel Bd.
...P.2d 1006; Cadilla v. Board of Medical Examiners (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 961, 966--967, 103 Cal.Rptr. 455; Hopper v. State Personnel Board (1962) 204 Cal.App.2d 273, 275, 22 Cal.Rptr. 88.) The judgment of the superior court denying the writ of mandate is reversed and the cause is remanded to t......