Seibert v. City of San Jose

Citation247 Cal.App.4th 1027,202 Cal.Rptr.3d 890
Decision Date31 May 2016
Docket NumberH040268
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesGrant SEIBERT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE et al., Defendants and Appellants.

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Appellant Grant Seibert: Hal F. Seibert.

Attorneys for Defendants and Appellants City of San Jose et al.: Richard Doyle, City Attorney, Nora Frimann, Assistant City Attorney, Kathryn Zoglin, Senior Deputy City Attorney.

RUSHING, P.J.

Plaintiff Grant Seibert petitioned the superior court for a writ of administrative mandamus to set aside a decision by the Civil Service Commission of the City of San Jose (Commission) denying his appeal from a decision by the San Jose Fire Department (Department) to terminate his employment as a firefighter and paramedic. The dismissal was based upon five charges of misconduct, two of which stemmed from his exchange of salacious e-mails during work hours with a 16–year old girl who had visited the station, and three of which stemmed from allegedly improper conduct toward a female coworker. The trial court set aside the Commission's decision on all but one of the charges, and found that charge insufficient to sustain the level of discipline imposed. Both parties have appealed. We hold that (1) the Commission was not deprived of jurisdiction by the belated filing of the notice of discipline on which the challenged dismissal was based; (2) the trial court properly concluded that the e-mail exchange as alleged in one charge, which made no reference to the recipient's age, could not be found to violate any applicable rule or policy; (3) the court permissibly found, on conflicting evidence, that Seibert lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the recipient's age; (4) the court erred by refusing to consider the contents of interview transcripts which constituted the chief evidence of misconduct toward a female coworker; and (5) the court should have directed that any further administrative proceedings be heard and determined by an administrative law judge. We will reverse the judgment for further proceedings consistent with our opinion.

Background
I. Salacious E-mails

On the morning of Thanksgiving Day 2008, a female high school student who lived in the neighborhood of Fire Station 28 brought a cookie pie to the firefighters there. The girl, to whom we shall refer as “N.C.,” was in 10th grade at the time, a few months short of her 17th birthday. She was given a tour of the station by respondent and cross-appellant Seibert. At its conclusion he took a picture of her next to a fire engine. He obtained her e- mail address so that he could send the picture to her. At 11:00 a.m. he sent her the picture and thanked her for the baked goods, thus commencing the exchange of e-mails that ultimately included the messages underlying the first set of charges here.

On December 15, 2008, N.C. again appeared at the station, this time in the company of two or three male classmates. Seibert gave the youths a tour of the station. At least one of them played junior varsity football at their high school, and recognized a photograph of the station supervisor, Captain Leong, who was a varsity football coach at the same school. He was summoned to greet them.

While at the station, N.C. apparently injured her elbow. At 2:54 p.m., after she left, she e-mailed Seibert, describing her injury. This led to an exchange of e-mails over at least a five-hour period, which grew increasingly risqué while playing on the conceit that Seibert might use his paramedic skills to treat the injury (all spelling and punctuation as in original):1

  SENDER TEXT   N.C. 2:54 p.m. thank you so much again for doing that haha that will definatly give them something to talk about tomorrow and apparently i nailed my elbow sometime i was there (I don't remember how or when) but I nailed it haha and I got in, my car and i was like hmm..my elbow kinda hurts and i got home at looked at it and its like all bleeding and bruised haha i started laughing and I was like not like this is random or anything! But yes it was very good seeing you (:   Seibert (G.S.) 3:06 p.m.: That's funny ... I don't remember you hitting your elbow on anything ... ???Too bad your not here, I would take care of you :) It was good seeing you too ...   N.C. 3:34 p.m.: Haha oh yeah that's right you're the paramedic of the team there huh? But yea hurts pretty bad but i don't remember hitting it haha and how would you take care of me? ;)   G.S. 3:38 p.m.: is it swollen?   N.C. 3:42 p.m.: i dont think so maybe a little bump but it hurts to rest on it haha but I have kinda bony arms im tinyyy  
  G.S. 3:48 p.m.: sorry.... what will make it better?   N.C. 3:52 p.m.: haha well you're the doctor in the house;)   G.S. 4:59 p.m.: hmmm..... this is true.... I think i would have to do a hands on evaluation   N.C. 5:10 p.m.: hmm.. will that help? cuz I just wanna feel better and good.   G.S. 5:15 p.m.: I think it might help:)   N.C. 5:20 p.m.: so how do those work? im not sure ive had one from a paramedic before..?   G.S. 5:27 p.m.: I Don't know if I can/should explain..... is this the 'family' computer ?   N.C. 5:31 p.m.: no its mine (: and of course you can, a patient should know what a paramedic is thinking right?   G.S. 5:40 p.m.: .. well did you say your elbow hurt ... so as a paramedic, it is my job to 'asses' you and try to make you feel good.... A good 'hands-on' assesment begins at the head, and works down the body examining every inch of you to make sure you are okay ... of course the body needs to be exposed that way I can see all injuries   N.C. 5:46 p.m.: oh really? hmm.. i think i can do that..:) so as a firefighter and getting your very "busy" calls at 3:30 in the morning do yo get hurt at all? or do you have any injuries?   G.S. 5:51 p.m.: some guys can get hurt, this is a physical job, .but luckly [sic] I haven't gotten hurt.... healthy as a horse:) I would have to evaluate you to see how healthy you are:)   N.C. 5:58 p.m.:  oh okay yea im not sick so thats good but im always willing to do a hands on eval with a cute firefighter:)    G.S. 6:42 p.m.: How do you know you are healthy..?? I Should examine you just to make sure I may have to do a very, very thorough hands on evaluation ...   N.C. [no time stamp]: haha well i know im not like a cough cough sick but yes i want to be positive im not and to be very veryy thorough I think you might have to use a "instrument" that some 'paramedics' use right? but it kinda depends on the paramedic on how big their equipment is   G.S. 6:57 p.m.: you are right.... I have a lot of equipment I can use to 'evaluate' you ... we should start by taking your temperature with a 'thermometer' ...   N.C. 7:00 p.m.: yeah that would be good but i think you have to do the 'hands on' my whole body first to start the eval? then yes my temperature is must.. then what else is there?  

G.S. 7:12 p.m.: So every evaluation does infact start with a hands on evaluation. . I would start at your head and work my way down ... first I have to take your blood pressure then I would have to look at your lips and mouth ... make sure you have no oral trauma Then look at your neck ... then I have to make sure you are getting equal `rise and fall' to your chest, make sure you don't have a `pneumothorax' ... this may involve exposing your chest (for medical purposes only) Then I would have to feel your stomach, and press in different places to see if you are `tender' at all Then I would have to feel your hips to make sure there is no pain ... this could take a while to examine this area ... I may need to `poke and probe' in this area then after the `physical' is complete.... then I would take your temperature for a few minutes.. then I would have you move your body in different positions to see how flexible you are and that you have no sprains..
N.C. [no time stamp]: so for the different positions..i think ill pass that section of the evaluation cuz im pretty flexible ;) so then i know that we'll have to use a thermometer to check my temperature in my mouth.. is there any other way or place that you can check that feels good? oh i mean that tell? like maybe a place that's a little more wet than my mouth so your equipment can really make my temperature rise? maybe with a thermometer or..?
G.S. 7:31 p.m.: It all depends on what I find with you.... the more wet you are, the deeper I can probe to evaluate you.. Also, It is in your favor to be flexible.... that will help during the evaluation lot.... give me an idea or explain to me, how `flexible' you are ?? After probing you, and taking your temperature, I may have some `medicine' to give to you
N.C. 7:34 p.m.: uhm..being flexible..i can bend over and touch my toes, i can kind of do the splits..im good at doing the butterfly and just laying down on my back and "stretching" but i really like bending over and touching my toes or just stretching like that
G.S. 7:43 p.m.: I see.... that is a good visual ... I already picture you doing that — that will make my evaluation easier.. I can start my evaluation from you in several different positions, and can finish my evaluation from behind you. I like that:) I also have some `medication' for you..

N.C. [no time stamp]: so different positions like what? im willing to try new ones cuz im sure theres plenty i don't know or havn't done yet in an evaluation.. and how big is your thermometer? cuz i think i can open my mouth pretty wide to make sure we get the correct reading..but it may take a few tries.. and how else can we take my temperature?

At about this point N.C.'s father entered the room and saw what she was doing. He printed out copies of the messages and went to the fire station, arriving in the late evening. He asked to see the person in charge, who was Captain Leong. Leong described him as appearing “very upset.” According to him, the father said, “Your firefighter has...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Woodworth v. Loma Linda Univ. Med. Ctr.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 24 Julio 2023
    ...First, she did not object to Lee's declaration in the trial court. (Evid. Code, § 353, subd. (a); Seibert v. City of San Jose (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1057.) Second, the argument consists of a conclusory assertion with no citation to legal authority and no identification of which statem......
  • People v. Garcia
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 31 Mayo 2016
  • Mokatish v. Fairfield Hous. Auth.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 14 Abril 2017
    ...an administrative decision to hypothesize error where the petitioner has not convincingly demonstrated it. (Cf. Seibert v. City of San Jose (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1043 [presumption of correctness required court to presume lower court properly applied the law where decision was ambiguo......
  • Merced Cnty. v. Kong-Brown
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • 19 Noviembre 2021
    ...["Discipline imposed on public employees affects their fundamental vested right in employment."]; Seibert v. City of San Jose (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1027, 1042; Barber v. Long Beach Civil Service Com. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 652, 658; Davis v. Los Angeles Unified School District Personnel Com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Hearsay Rule
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Is It Admissible? - 2017 Testimonial evidence
    • 31 Julio 2017
    ...prior statements indicating otherwise, are proper. They are tantamount to prior inconsistent statements. Seibert v. City of San Jose , 247 Cal.App.4th 1027 (2016). In New York, a prior statement made by a defendant during police questioning may be admissible to impeach that defendant’s test......
  • Hearsay rule
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Is It Admissible? Part I. Testimonial Evidence
    • 1 Mayo 2022
    ...prior statements indicating otherwise, are proper. They are tantamount to prior inconsistent statements. Seibert v. City of San Jose , 247 Cal.App.4th 1027 (2016). In New York, a prior statement made by a defendant during police questioning may be admissible to impeach that defendant’s test......
  • Records
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Evidence Foundations Hearsay
    • 5 Mayo 2019
    ...the record to be admitted as evidence. The trial court’s ruling admitting the transcript was error. Seibert v. City of San Jose , 247 Cal. App. 4th 1027; 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 435; 2016 WL 3085205 (Cal. App. 2016). The past recollection recorded exception permits the introduction of a hearsa......
  • Witnesses
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Trial Evidence Foundations - 2017 Contents
    • 31 Julio 2017
    ...a൶rmatively damaging, as opposed to merely disappointing, it must give positive aid to the other side. Seibert v. City of San Jose , 247 Cal. App. 4th 1027; 2016 Cal. App. LEXIS 435; 2016 WL 3085205 (Cal. App. 2016). A hearsay statement is admissible as a prior inconsistent statement if it ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT