Sanchez v. City of Los Angeles

• Decision Date: 26 June 2006
• Docket Number: No. B182835.,B182835.
• Citation: 140 Cal.App.4th 1069,45 Cal.Rptr.3d 188
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Ronald SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents.

45 Cal.Rptr.3d 188

140 Cal.App.4th 1069

Ronald SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. B182835.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three.

June 26, 2006.

Diane Marchant, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Gerald M. Sato, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.

KLEIN, P.J.

Plaintiff and appellant Ronald Sanchez (Sanchez), a police officer for the City of Los Angeles Police Department (Department), appeals a judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) wherein he challenged the Department's downgrade of his pay grade position from Police Officer III to Police Officer II. Defendants and respondents herein are the City of Los Angeles (the City) and William Bratton, the City's Chief of Police (Chief) (collectively referred to as the Department).

The threshold issue is whether the punitive action of downgrade of Sanchez's position was barred by the one-year statute of limitations (Gov.Code, § 3304, subd. (d))¹ set forth in the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (the Act) (§ 3300 et seq.) With respect to limitations of actions, the Act provides "no punitive action . . . shall be undertaken for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct if the investigation of the allegation is not completed within one year of the public agency's discovery by a person authorized to initiate an investigation of the allegation of an act, omission, or other misconduct. . . . In the event that the public agency determines that discipline may be taken, it shall complete its investigation and notify the public safety officer of its proposed disciplinary action within that year . . . ." (§ 3304, subd. (d), italics added.)

Within the one-year period following the Department's discovery of the operative facts giving rise to the proposed discipline, the Department solely proposed disciplinary action consisting of a 20-day suspension. With respect to downgrade considerations, the paperwork at that time stated "None." Accordingly, the Department's subsequent decision, after the expiration of the one-year period, to pursue a downgrade in addition to the suspension, was untimely. Therefore, Sanchez is entitled to reinstatement to his position as Police Officer III.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Sanchez was a Police Officer III assigned to the Harbor Area. The Department acknowledges the date of its discovery of the facts constituting misconduct by Sanchez, for purposes of the instant disciplinary action of a downgrade, was September 8, 1998.

1. Administrative proceedings.

a. Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action, issued within one year of discovery, solely proposed a 20-day suspension.

On August 25, 1999, within one year of discovery, Captain Melton served Sanchez with a Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action. In the Notice, Melton indicated he was proposing to the Chief that Sanchez be suspended for 20 working days based on six proposed charges. The first count alleged that on August 5, 6, or 9, 1998, Sanchez had directed another officer to falsify information on Sanchez's daily field actives report (the falsification charge). The remaining five counts alleged that on various dates, between August 5 and November 12, 1998, Sanchez conducted personal business while on duty.

The proposed 20-day suspension was the only punitive action set forth in the August 25, 1999 Notice. With respect to other possible discipline, such as "Demotion/Downgrade Considerations" and "Relief From Duty Considerations," the accompanying paperwork stated "None."

b. Chief rejects the proposed 20-day suspension and refers the matter to a Board of Rights.

On September 8, 1999, exactly one year after the discovery date, then Chief Bernard Parks rejected Captain Melton's proposed discipline, as set forth in the Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action, and issued a Personnel Complaint against Sanchez on the same six charges, for hearing and decision by a Board of Rights.²

c. More than one year after discovery, Captain Melton requests that Sanchez be downgraded.

On October 27, 1999, more than 13 months after the discovery date of September 8, 1998, Captain Melton served Sanchez with a memorandum written by Melton to the commanding officer of the Department's Human Resources Bureau. In the memorandum, Melton requested Sanchez be reduced in pay grade to Police Officer II and that he be transferred from the Harbor Area. In support of the request, Melton cited the six charges in the Personnel Complaint against Sanchez, pending before a Board of Rights, as well as a 31-day suspension Sanchez received in 1993 after he unnecessarily became involved in an altercation, and a 10-day suspension imposed for Sanchez's involvement in an off-duty alcohol-related traffic collision in 1995.

Melton wrote in said memorandum, "Based on the totality of the circumstances, it has been determined that Officer Sanchez be immediately reassigned to duties characterized by less responsibility and greater accountability." (Italics added.) Melton also explained, "This action is taken separate and apart from any discipline that may result from the referenced [P]ersonnel [C]omplaint." (Italics added.)³

d. Pursuant to Captain Melton's request, the Chief authorizes downgrade of Sanchez's position.

On December 8, 1999, the Office of the Chief issued a transfer order downgrading Sanchez to Police Officer II and transferring him out of the Harbor Area. The transfer order is captioned "OFFICE OF THE CHIEF" and at the end of the order is printed "BERNARD C. PARKS [¶] Chief of Police." The signature above Chief Parks's preprinted name is that of David Gascon, who signed the order for Chief Parks.⁴

e. On the Personnel Complaint, the Board of Rights prescribes a 22-day suspension; the Chief imposes that penalty.

As for the Personnel Complaint on the six pending charges against Sanchez, the matter proceeded to a Board of Rights which convened and heard testimony on four dates between January 24, 2000 and May 8, 2001. The Board unanimously found Sanchez not guilty on the falsification count, not guilty on one count of conducting personal business while on duty, and guilty on the remaining four counts of conducting personal business while on duty. By way of penalty, the Board prescribed that Sanchez be suspended for 22 working days without pay.⁵

On May 21, 2001, Chief Parks, in accordance with the decision of the Board of Rights, suspended Sanchez for 22 working days without pay. Sanchez served the suspension.

f. In the administrative appeal of the downgrade order, the hearing officer recommends Sanchez be reinstated to Police Officer III.

As for the Chief's December 8, 1999 downgrade order, Sanchez pursued an internal administrative appeal. On September 16, 2003, a hearing on the downgrade in pay was conducted before Captain Sweet.⁶ After reviewing the evidence presented at the hearing, Captain Sweet determined the downgrade of Sanchez to Police Officer II should be overturned and that Sanchez be reinstated as a Police Officer III.

Captain Sweet summarized the testimony and set forth his findings and recommendation in a seven-page memorandum to the current Chief (now Chief Bratton), dated September 25, 2003. In recommending reinstatement, Captain Sweet observed, inter alia: "There are several management concerns on the downgrading of Sanchez. One is the system of reducing an officer in rank on the same grounds that involve a [P]ersonnel [C]omplaint that has not been adjudicated, this causes problems for the employee and the Department. In this incident, the allegation of falsifying a [daily field activities report] was serious misconduct. . . . But in this case, the officer was found not to have committed this misconduct. Therefore, the main reason for downgrading of Officer Sanchez was no longer an issue."

g. The Chief rejects the hearing officer's recommendation and upholds the December 8, 1999 downgrade order.

October 1, 2003, the Chief issued an order rejecting Captain Sweet's recommendation. The Chief stated in his decision, "Upon a review of the record, I find that there was sufficient cause to support the downgrade . . . ." In his two-page decision, the Chief explained that as a field training officer, Sanchez "was not only required to perform his job right, he was obligated to exemplify the highest standards so that the trainees under his charge would operate to those high standards when they were released from training. Officer Sanchez's actions `poisoned the well' by teaching his trainees to neglect their duties."

2. Trial court proceedings.

a. Sanchez's petition for writ of mandate.

On May 18, 2004, Sanchez filed a petition for writ of mandate seeking to set aside the Chief's decision refusing to reinstate Sanchez to Police Officer III.

Sanchez contended, inter alia, the Chief's decision was an abuse of discretion because Sanchez "was not advised that the Department intended to downgrade him until over a year had passed since it discovered the alleged misconduct," in violation of the limitations period set forth in section 3304, subdivision (d).

Sanchez also contended the administrative appeal of the downgrade lacked procedural fairness because the Chief initially authorized the downgrade and also acted as the final decision-maker on the administrative appeal, in direct violation of Brown v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 102 Cal.App.4th at page 177, 125 Cal.Rptr.2d 474.

b. Opposition papers.

The Department argued it complied with section 3304, subdivision (d), in that on August 25, 1999, within one year of discovery, it served Sanchez with the Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action. The Department asserted it is not limited to the discipline outlined in the initial Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action, and its amendment of...