Lee v. Board of Civil Service Comrs.

• Decision Date: 16 May 1990
• Docket Number: No. D009302,D009302
• Citation: Lee v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., 270 Cal.Rptr. 47, 221 Cal.App.3d 103 (Cal. App. 1990)
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 116 Lab.Cas. P 56,354 Sue LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Page 47

270 Cal.Rptr. 47

221 Cal.App.3d 103, 116 Lab.Cas. P 56,354

Sue LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. D009302.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

May 16, 1990.

Certified for Partial Publication ^*

[221 Cal.App.3d 105] Stephen R. Brodsky, San Diego, for plaintiff and appellant.

Lloyd M. Harmon, Jr., County Counsel, Daniel J. Wallace, Chief Deputy and Andrew J. Freeman, Deputy, for defendants and respondents.

TODD, Acting Presiding Judge.

The sole issue on this appeal is whether the San Diego County Board of Civil Service Commissioners (Board; also known as the Civil Service Commission) lawfully revised its administrative personnel policy without making any change in civil service rules so that overtime hours Sue Lee worked during her probationary period did not count in reducing her probationary period. Lee appeals the trial court's denial of her first amended petition for writ of mandate seeking reinstatement, back pay, interest, benefits, attorney's fees and costs with respect to her termination from county public employment as a staff nurse on June 12, 1987, as of which date the Board and the trial court held Lee was a probationary employee dischargeable without cause.

Lee's position is that if the Board had applied its usual practice of deducting absences and crediting overtime in calculating the probationary period, she would have completed her probationary period on June 5, 1987, and the Board would have to reinstate her because she was discharged without good cause. The trial court, however, upheld the Board's application to Lee of a revised personnel policy of not crediting overtime hours Lee worked toward completion of her probationary period, with the result her probationary period was not completed as of the June 12, 1987, date of her discharge and would not end until June 24, 1987. We affirm the trial court's decision.

FACTS

On November 7, 1986, Lee was hired as a Staff Nurse II in the San Diego County Department of Health Services (DHS) and was assigned to work at the County Mental Health facility in Hillcrest (CMH). She began serving a six-month probationary period, which in the ordinary course of events would end on May 7, 1987. During the probationary period Lee was charged with using up time for such things as compensatory time off, leave without pay, illness and light duty. For these items a total of 263 hours (33 working days) was added to the six-month probationary period. Also during the probationary period Lee worked 95.5 hours of overtime which the Board determined not to credit toward Lee's probationary period. This determination was different from the treatment given in six other cases since 1980 in which the Board applied a formula consisting of a six-month block of time plus any leave time minus overtime worked.

Although she had exhibited some problems in terms of being argumentative and making two medication errors, Lee's mid-probationary performance evaluation gave her an overall rating of standard as of February 7, 1987. In late January 1987 Lee was transferred from the p.m. shift in Ward 200 to the a.m. shift in Ward 100 where her problems began. She had been told the transfer would be temporary but was informed in early February she would work on Ward 100 indefinitely because her work performance allegedly had not been adequate. Lee began receiving numerous criticisms which a hearing officer found "were often insignificant or there was a reasonable explanation for the alleged problem."

In February 1987 DHS initiated proceedings to terminate Lee. However, after Lee filed a discrimination complaint on February 18, 1987, the termination proceedings were stayed pending investigation of the discrimination charge. It was found there was no probable cause for the charge.

On March 17, 1987, Lee was injured when assaulted by a patient. She was assigned to light duty for two to three weeks. By letter dated June 10, 1987, treating Lee as a probationary employee, Lee was terminated effective June 12, 1987.

On December 2, 1987, the Board adopted the findings, conclusions and proposed decision of a hearing officer who could not find racial discrimination existed in DHS regarding Lee and who concluded, in part:

"Under Civil Service Rule 4.2.5(c), a probationary employee may be dismissed at any time and has no right to appeal the dismissal to the Civil Service Commission. Because the charge of racial discrimination was not proven, the department had the authority to terminate complainant during her probationary period, and she has no right to appeal that termination."

As a result of Lee's request for an investigation and injury leave hearing brought on the basis of Lee's assertion she had passed her probationary period, on March 2, 1988, the Board made the ruling here at issue. Specifically, the Board adopted the recommendation of Civil Service Commissioner Merrill Groat as to the interpretation of Civil Service Rule 4.2.5(b) ¹ that overtime worked not be subtracted from a probationary period, affirmed that DHS terminated Lee within the probationary period and denied Lee's request for reinstatement and back pay.

Lee filed her petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 on March 1, 1988, and her first amended petition for writ of mandate on April 11, 1988. The matter was heard September 8, 1988, and formal judgment entered November 4, 1988. Because Lee did not file a complete record of the December 2, 1987, decision of the Board dealing with the issue of racial discrimination, the trial court denied the petition as to that decision. (!CT 190)! With respect to the March 2, 1988, decision concerning Lee's probationary status, the trial court found:

"a. The probationary period was six months.

"b. This six months were [sic ] properly extended, under the Civil Service rules, when petitioner was on injury leave and light duty assignment and not subject to evaluation by her supervisor.

"c. The Civil Service rules do not allow shortening the six month period to take into consideration overtime work. The Court does not find a valid legal or equitable argument to support petitioner's argument to allow such consideration."

Accordingly, the trial court denied the petition, also ordering that Lee's probationary period "was properly established and extended by the Civil Service rules ... and properly determined" by the Board, and that Lee "failed to complete the probationary period."

DISCUSSION

I

Preliminarily, it must be noted that probationary employees have only statutory rights and have no vested interest in employment. (Anderson v. State Personnel Bd. (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 242, 249, 162 Cal.Rptr. 865.) A rejected probationary employee may be reinstated only on a showing that there was no substantial evidence to support the rejection. (Ibid.) The independent judgment test applicable to a permanent, nonprobationary employee (see Brush v. City of Los Angeles (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 120, 123, 119 Cal.Rptr. 366) does not pertain to a rejected probationary employee. Absent proof to the contrary, it is to be presumed the findings of the administrative agency are correct and supported by substantial evidence (Smith v. Regents of University of California (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 397, 405, 130 Cal.Rptr. 118) and that the agency performed its duties as required by law (Cosgrove v. County of Sacramento (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 45, 50-51, 59 Cal.Rptr. 919). It is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that the administrative proceedings were unfair or constituted an abuse of discretion. (Foster v. Civil Service Com. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 444, 453, 190 Cal.Rptr. 893.)

II

A dominant theme in Lee's argument is that Wiles v. State Personnel Board (1942) 19 Cal.2d 344, 121 P.2d 673 requires that the overtime hours Lee worked be credited toward completion of the probationary period. That case did not deal with overtime hours, but rather with time the probationary employee spent in a hospital where he continued to carry on the duties of his office, keeping daily contact with the office by telephone and being visited frequently by his superiors who evaluated his performance as satisfactory. (Id. at p. 348, 121 P.2d 673.) Wiles held:

"From these facts it is clear that the purposes and objects of the probationary period were fulfilled during the time petitioner was in the hospital. Under such circumstances that time should not be deducted from the probationary service." (Ibid., emphasis added.)

Wiles properly is to be read as limited to the circumstances shown to exist in that case, particularly the fact that the probationary employee "continued to do his work under direct supervision of the appointive power during his absence from the office." (Wiles v. State Personnel Board, supra, 19 Cal.2d at p. 348, 121 P.2d 673.) Wiles recognized there can be circumstances where the time spent away from the position should not be included in determining the termination of the probationary period. (Ibid.) It seems clear under Wiles that at a minimum there must be present the essential characteristic of supervision during the performance of the probationary employee's work for the time during which the performance occurred to be counted as partial completion of the probationary period. Given the probationary employee's affirmative burden in the matter, it is incumbent on the employee to demonstrate this supervised work aspect was present for any period of time the probationary employee seeks to have counted toward completion of the probationary period. In this case we have no more than a statement of the number of hours Lee was present, absent and on light duty. Lee has not met her burden of demonstrating the Board abused its discretion in not crediting her with the overtime hours worked. (See Foster v. Civil Service Com., supra, 142 Cal.App.3d 444, 453, 190 Cal.Rptr. 893; see also ...