Runyan v. Ellis, B080924
Decision Date | 01 December 1995 |
Docket Number | No. B080924,B080924 |
Citation | 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356,40 Cal.App.4th 961 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9170, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,889 Gary RUNYAN, Petitioner and Respondent, v. William C. ELLIS, as Chief of Police, etc., et al., Respondents and Appellants. |
James E. Trott, Huntington Beach, and Larry J. Roberts, Orange, for Petitioner and Respondent.
John R. Calhoun, City Attorney, and Linda L. Daube, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondents and Appellants.
Respondents, the City of Long Beach (the City), the City's Manager, James C. Hankla and the City's Chief of Police, William C. Ellis (the Chief), appeal from the grant of a peremptory writ of mandate ordering them to provide petitioner, Gary Runyan, a police officer with the City, an administrative appeal before the City's Civil Service Commission in accordance with the Public Safety Officers' Procedural Bill of Rights Act (hereinafter the Bill of Rights Act). (Gov.Code, § 3304, subd. (b).) 1 Because we hold the writ was properly issued, the judgment is affirmed.
In June, 1992, the police department for the City of Long Beach filed an internal affairs complaint against Runyan for deficiencies in his performance. On September 28, 1992, the City sent a formal letter of reprimand listing six incidents of alleged failure on Runyan's part to meet the police department's standards as a peace officer. Runyan was notified the City would take the disciplinary measure of temporarily transferring him for 90 days from the Patrol Bureau, Field Support Division to the Patrol Bureau, East Division, Team 24 and reduce his pay. Runyan was also notified of his right, pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Long Beach Police Officers Association, to appeal the disciplinary action to the City Manager Runyan requested an administrative appeal before the City's Civil Service Commission but his request was denied. Runyan filed a second formal request for administrative appeal before the Civil Service Commission. The second request for appeal before the Civil Service Commission was also denied.
or his designee. (MOU, Article VIII, section III, subd. D.2, para. 2.)
Runyan filed his petition for peremptory writ of mandate, pursuant to section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to force the Civil Service Commission to provide Runyan with an administrative appeal as the result of his punitive transfer to a lower paying position.
The City, its Manager and the Chief responded to the petition by opposing it on three grounds: (1) the bargained-for MOU; (2) the "Home Rule" provisions of the Constitution; (3) the rules of the Civil Service Commission which do not provide Runyan with an administrative appeal before it.
The trial court granted Runyan's petition for peremptory writ of mandate and ordered the respondents to provide an administrative appeal before the Civil Service Commission in accordance with section 3304, subdivision (b). Respondents filed this timely appeal.
The issue respondents raise in this appeal is whether Runyan had a right to an administrative appeal before the City's Civil Service Commission pursuant to the Bill of Rights Act, the City's Charter, and the civil service rules.
(Binkley v. City of Long Beach (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1795, 1806, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 903.)
The Bill of Rights Act "provides a catalogue of basic rights and protections which must be afforded all peace officers by the public entities which employ them." (Binkley v. City of Long Beach, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 1805, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 903, fn. omitted; White v. County of Sacramento (1982) 31 Cal.3d 676, 679, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191.)
One such basic protection is the right to an administrative appeal of punitive actions. Section 3304, subdivision (b) of the Bill of Rights Act provides, "No punitive action, nor denial of promotion on grounds other than merit, shall be undertaken by any public agency without providing the public safety officer with an opportunity for administrative appeal."
We conclude Runyan had a right to an administrative appeal because his 90-day transfer with accompanying cut in pay was "punitive action" pursuant to section 3303. (See also, White v. County of Sacramento, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 681-683, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191.) Section 3303 defines punitive action as "any action which may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment." (Italics added.) The action taken against Runyan was a transfer for purposes of punishment for the numerous instances of infractions and resulted in a reduction in pay. As he was subjected to punitive action, Runyan had a right to an administrative appeal.
While respondents do not deny Runyan had a right to an administrative appeal, they contend Runyan had no "absolute right" to a hearing before the Civil Service Commission. Respondents argue the City strictly complied with the provisions of the Civil Service Rules and the MOU with the result they satisfied the procedural due process requirements of the Bill of Rights Act.
(Binkley v. City of Long Beach, supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at p. 1806, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 903.) Here, the MOU requires We conclude, while the meeting is a necessary part of the appeal process, it is nevertheless insufficient to fulfill due process requirements.
Runyan correctly argues respondents are collaterally estopped to relitigate the adequacy of the meeting with the Manager under the MOU. Pursuant to rule 977(b)(1) of the California Rules of Court 2, Runyan cites an unpublished opinion issued by this division of this district court in the case entitled Stowe v. The City of Long Beach (No. BO53521, filed February 19, 1992.) A review of this opinion reveals the case does involve the same City, City Manager and the Police Chief, construction of the identical provision of the MOU in conjunction with the identical section 3304 of the Bill of Rights Act now before us. Further, the issue there was decided on its merits and on a similar factual basis as the case here. Hence, the City is estopped to relitigate the sufficiency of the administrative appeal process under Article VIII, section III, subdivision D.2, paragraph 2 of the MOU. (Verdugo Hills Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Health (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 957, 962, fn. 6, 152 Cal.Rptr. 263.) 3
In Stowe v. The City of Long Beach, we addressed this issue affirming the trial court's ruling the police officer had a right to an administrative appeal before the Civil Service Commission. (Pp. 6-12.) Stowe was a probationary sergeant in the City's police department who was demoted to corporal with the accompanying salary reduction. (P. 5.) Stowe first met with the City Manager and then sought an administrative appeal of his demotion before the same Civil Service Commission. The Commission refused to hear Stowe's appeal. The trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. (P. 6.) Just as they do here, the City, the Manager and the Chief argued that the hearing under the MOU satisfied the requirements of the Act. (P. 10.) We disagreed, stating, (Pp. 10-11.) Based on our opinion in Stowe, we conclude the MOU does not comply with the requirements of section 3304, subdivision (b).
Respondents nevertheless argue the trial court's ruling Runyan must have a hearing before the Civil Service Commission violates the "home rule" provision of the State Constitution.
We recognize the City is a charter city, governed by the "home rule" provisions of the California Constitution, article XI, section 5. 4 The Bill of Rights Act (Binkley v. City of Long Beach, supra, 16...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Breslin v. City and County of San Francisco
...p. 26, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 615; Alameida v. State Personnel Bd. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 46, 63, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 383; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 964, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356.) Effective law enforcement depends on the maintenance of stable public employer-public safety employee relations ......
-
Bettencourt v. City & County of S.F.
...p. 26, 22 Cal. Rptr.3d 615; Alameida v. State Personnel Bd. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 46, 63, 15 Cal. Rptr.3d 383; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 964, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356.) The one-year statute of limitations set out in section 3304(d) seeks to balance competing interests—the public......
-
Ccpoa v. State
...rights and protections that must be afforded all peace officers by the public entities which employ them.3 (Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 964, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356; Binkley v. City of Long Beach (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 1795, 1805, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d Section 3303, which is most relevant......
-
Joseph v. City of Atwater
...was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing before a neutral fact finder to satisfy due process and § 3304]; Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961, 967, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 356 [meeting between police officer and city manager was not sufficient to satisfy administrative appeal requirements of......