Larson v. State Personnel Bd.

• Decision Date: 12 September 1994
• Docket Number: No. F020367,F020367
• Citation: 28 Cal.App.4th 265,33 Cal.Rptr.2d 412
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 93 Ed. Law Rep. 857 David LARSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 412

33 Cal.Rptr.2d 412

28 Cal.App.4th 265, 93 Ed. Law Rep. 857

David LARSON, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Appellant.

No. F020367.

Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California.

Sept. 12, 1994.

Certified for Partial Publication. ^*

[28 Cal.App.4th 268] Daniel E. Lungren, Atty. Gen., Henry G. Ullerich, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Jose R. Guerrero, Deputy Atty. Gen., Oakland, for defendant and appellant.

John Patrick Moore, Fresno, for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

MARTIN, Acting Presiding Justice.

California State Personnel Board (Board) appeals from a judgment granting peremptory writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5, subds. (f), (g)) to compel reversal of David Larson's (Larson) termination as a teacher with real party in interest Department of Developmental Services (DDS). ¹

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

DDS discharged Larson as a teacher at the Porterville Developmental Center effective July 24, 1992, based on his alleged sexual molestation of developmentally disabled clients. Larson appealed the dismissal to Board.

On January 5, 1993, the appeal came before Administrative Law Judge Philip E. Callis of Board. That same day, Larson and DDS entered into a written settlement agreement. DDS agreed to withdraw its adverse action of termination against Larson, Larson agreed to withdraw his appeal, and DDS agreed to reinstate Larson's employment subject to certain conditions. The administrative law judge advised the parties:

"I'm going to submit what you have told me to the Board. And I will prepare a proposed decision in which I describe what occurred and make a recommendation to the Board on what action they should take.

"Ultimately, it's the Board decision on whether or not to permit you to withdraw the action or not. And I will make a proposed decision. The parties, if there's disagreement about what the Board does, they can certainly appeal it at that point."

Thereafter, the administrative law judge signed a proposed decision (1) disapproving DDS's attempted withdrawal of the adverse action of dismissal and Larson's attempted withdrawal of his appeal therefrom; (2) referring the matter to the Board hearing office for a new hearing on the merits of the appeal or, in the alternative, the parties' submission of a settlement agreement for Board approval; and (3) maintaining Larson's status as a dismissed employee pending final disposition of the appeal. Board adopted the administrative law judge's proposed decision as its decision in the case.

On March 25, 1993, Larson filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in Tulare County Superior Court. The petition named Board as respondent and prayed for a peremptory writ to compel reversal of Board's order discharging Larson as a teacher with DDS. Larson later amended the petition to include Board's record of administrative hearing and Board filed written opposition to the petition for writ.

On June 24, 1993, the court conducted a hearing and granted the petition by minute order, stating:

"Now, look, the Court never even gets to the question of interpretation of [Government Code] section 18681. The employee's withdrawal of this appeal on January 5th, 1993 deprived the State Personnel Board of any further jurisdiction, and for all purposes in the appeal, the Board acted officiously and in excess of jurisdiction when it rendered its decision in this matter...."

On July 16, 1993, the court filed a formal judgment granting peremptory writ of mandamus and on August 12, 1993, the court filed the peremptory writ of mandamus.

Board timely appealed.

On April 22, 1994, Board filed a request for judicial notice of 14 documents relating to the constitutional and statutory authority of the Board. ²

FACTS

The following facts are taken verbatim from Board's opening brief on appeal as adopted by Larson's brief on appeal:

"Plaintiff and respondent Larson was employed as a teacher of developmentally disabled clients at Porterville Developmental Center since 1978. The Department of Developmental Services (hereinafter 'DDS') dismissed Larson on July 24, 1992. The stated cause for dismissal was that he sexually molested two female patients. Larson appealed his dismissal and the matter was set for hearing on January 5, 1993....

"...

"Petitioner Larson's appeal from dismissal was heard on January 5, 1993 before Administrative Law Judge Phil Callis. Both Larson and DDS were represented by legal counsel.... The parties discussed settlement between themselves, and eventually advised Judge Callis that they had reached a settlement and wanted the hearing taken off [ ] calendar. The Administrative Law Judge advised the parties that their settlement needed to be submitted to the Board for approval pursuant to Government Code section 18681.... The parties did not want to submit their proposed settlement to the Board because they knew it would violate Board policy.... Instead, they sought to take the case off calendar and enter into a secret settlement thereby circumventing the established State Civil Service system....

"Thereafter, the parties advised Judge Callis that the terms of their tentative settlement included, among other provisions, a muzzle clause similar to the one rejected by the Board in a Board precedential decision Pamela Martin....

"Judge Callis informed the parties that the Board would likely not approve such a settlement. At that point, the attorneys told Judge Callis that they were well aware of the Pamela Martin decision, and for that reason, they did not wish to submit their settlement to the Board for approval. The parties requested instead that Judge Callis take the hearing off[ ]calendar as DDS was planning to withdraw the Notice of Adverse Action and the appellant was going to withdraw his appeal.... The parties asserted that the Board had no jurisdiction to question the terms of their 'private' agreement and that the Board was required to accept the withdrawal of the action without further inquiry....

"Judge Callis concluded the 'hearing' and stated that he would issue a proposed decision given the record before him. In his proposed decision, Judge Callis ruled that the parties could not unilaterally enter into their own private settlement agreement without the Board's approval and then dismiss the adverse action once they had invoked the Board's jurisdiction.... Judge Callis also stated in his proposed decision that the parties' refusal to present their stipulation to the Board for approval indicated to him that it was likely their secret settlement still violated the holding of Pamela Martin....

"Judge Callis concluded that the parties' attempted withdrawal was ineffective, and that a hearing was to be reset before an SPB Administrative Law Judge. In the meantime, the parties were free to present a stipulated settlement to the Board for approval....

"The SPB adopted Judge Callis['s] proposed decision as its own Board decision at its meeting of March 2 and 3, 1993.... On April 2, 1993, DDS filed a petition for rehearing with the Board, asking it to reconsider its decision. The Board requested argument from DDS as to why it should grant its petition for rehearing. No further argument in support of the petition for rehearing was filed by DDS, and the petition was ultimately denied by the Board at its meeting on June 1, 1993....

"...

"On March 25, 1993, a Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus was filed by Larson naming the California State Personnel Board as respondent.... The Administrative Hearing Record was lodged with the court....

"The plaintiff and respondent noticed a hearing on his writ of administrative mandamus and filed points and authorities.... The Board filed opposition and the hearing was held on June 24, 1994. The court granted the petition on that same date.... Judgment granting the petition was filed and entered on July 16, 1993. Notice of Entry of Judgment and Judgment Granting Peremptory Writ of Mandamus was given on July 22, 1993.... A timely Notice of Appeal was filed by appellant Board on September 16, 1993."

DISCUSSION

I. DID THE BOARD HAVE JURISDICTION TO INVALIDATE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT?

The Board contends (1) the trial court erred by failing to consider that statutes should be interpreted, whenever possible, consistent with the requirements of the Constitution; (2) once the parties have invoked the jurisdiction of the Board, public policy requires the Board retain oversight of proposed settlements that thwart the civil service statutes; (3) the trial court erred by sanctioning an illegal employment contract; and (4) Government Code section 18681 when read in the context of the civil service statutory framework and the Constitution, gives the Board jurisdiction to review proposed settlements. Thus, the trial court erred in concluding the Board did have jurisdiction to invalidate the settlement agreement between Larson and DDS.

The Legislature created California's first civil service system in 1913 to combat political patronage in state employment. Abuse of that system resulted in a 1934 initiative creating, by constitutional amendment, a nonpartisan State Personnel Board with power to enforce the state civil service laws. The sole aim of the amendment was to establish, by constitutional mandate, the principle that appointments and promotions in state service be made solely on the basis of merit. The provision left the Legislature free to enact other laws relating to personnel administration. Article VII of the Constitution provides a five-member Board shall enforce the civil service statutes and, by majority vote of all its members, shall prescribe probationary periods and classifications, adopt other rules authorized by statute, and review disciplinary actions. (Cal. Const., art. VII, § 3, subd. (a).) In 1981, the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) succeeded to the duties, purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction exercised by the Board...