Sulier v. State Personnel Bd.
Decision Date | 20 December 2004 |
Docket Number | No. C046695.,C046695. |
Citation | 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 615,125 Cal.App.4th 21 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Paul SULIER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant and Respondent; Department of Corrections, Real Party In Interest and Respondent. |
Mark R. Kruger for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.
Stephen A. Jennings, Staff Counsel, Sacramento, for Real Party In Interest and Respondent.
Does Government Code section 3304, subdivision (d) (1) require the California Department of Corrections (CDC) to mail a formal notice of adverse action within one year of the discovery of a correctional officer's misconduct by someone authorized to investigate that misconduct? No. That statute states the CDC must "notify the public safety officer of its proposed disciplinary action within" that one-year deadline. Because the CDC complied with this statute here, we shall affirm the judgment.
The relevant facts of this case are undisputed. The CDC imposed discipline on Paul Sulier by demoting him from correctional sergeant to correctional officer based on allegations he provided confidential information about one inmate to another.
The initial investigation into Sulier's conduct started on July 10, 2000. On July 2, 2001, the CDC sent Sulier a letter notifying him of the completion of the investigation and the discipline it proposed to impose on him: The CDC personally served a formal notice of adverse action pursuant to section 19574 on August 2, 2001.
Sulier appealed his demotion to the State Personnel Board (SPB). During the hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ), Sulier moved to dismiss the disciplinary action because he had not been served with the formal notice of adverse action2 within the one-year limitation period set forth in section 3304, subdivision (d) (hereafter section 3304(d)). The ALJ denied the motion and sustained the imposition of discipline.
The SPB rejected the ALJ's decision and decided the matter itself. The SPB concluded the discipline was improper because the CDC failed to serve a formal notice of adverse action within one year of the start of the investigation. The SPB revoked the demotion and awarded Sulier backpay, interest, and benefits that he would have earned as a correctional sergeant.
Sulier filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the trial court seeking reinstatement to his position as correctional sergeant based on the SPB's decision. The CDC filed its own cross-complaint/petition for writ of administrative mandamus arguing that the SPB improperly revoked the discipline against Sulier.
The trial court concluded that the informal notice of proposed discipline satisfied the requirements of section 3304(d) and remanded the matter to the SPB for further proceedings.
On April 20, 2004, Sulier filed his timely notice of appeal from the trial court's February 24, 2004, appealable judgment.
(California Teachers Assn. v. Governing Bd. of Golden Valley Unified School Dist. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 369, 375, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 642 (Golden Valley).) Here, we are concerned solely with the trial court's interpretation of section 3304(d); thus, our review is de novo.
The Trial Court Properly Concluded
The CDC Satisfied Section 3304(d)
Sulier argues "in order for the state to comply with the requirements of section 3304(d)[,] it must ... adhere to the notice requirements contained in section 19574." We disagree.
In examining statutes, " " (Golden Valley, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at pp. 375-376, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 642.)
The POBRA was first enacted in 1976. (Stats.1976, ch. 465, § 1, p. 1202.) It is (California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State of California (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 294, 304, 98 Cal. Rptr.2d 302.) "One such protection is to have a speedy adjudication of conduct that could result in discipline." (Alameida v. State Personnel Bd. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 46, 63, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 383.) This speedy adjudication protection is contained in section 3304. (Alameida, at pp. 60-63, 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 383.)
We therefore turn to the language of that section. Section 3304(d) states, in relevant part: (Italics added.)3
In addition to section 3304(d), section 3304, subdivision (f) provides "If, after investigation and any predisciplinary response or procedure, the public agency decides to impose discipline, the public agency shall notify the public safety officer in writing of its decision to impose discipline, including the date that the discipline will be imposed, within 30 days of its decision, except if the public safety officer is unavailable for discipline."
Thus, under the plain language of section 3304(d), if the CDC desires to discipline an officer, then it must complete the investigation into the misconduct within one year of the discovery of the misconduct by a person authorized to start an investigation into the conduct. If, at the conclusion of that investigation, the CDC "determines that discipline may be taken," then it must give the officer notice of the "proposed disciplinary action" during that same one-year time frame. (Idid., italics added.) When the CDC actually "decides to impose discipline," then it must notify the public safety officer in writing of its decision to impose discipline (§ 3304, subd. (f), italics added.).
Here, the CDC complied with this statute. Within one year of initiating the investigation, it served a notice on Sulier informing him that the investigation was completed. Further, that same letter identified the "proposed discipline" of "a one-step demotion to a Correctional Officer." Within 30 days of that notice, the CDC provided Sulier with a formal notice of adverse action under section 19574 notifying him of its decision to impose discipline on him.
Sulier argues the legislative history of section 3304(d) and sections 19574 and 19635 compel the conclusion that the CDC must serve a formal notice of adverse action under section 19574 within one year. We disagree.
We decline to look behind the unambiguous and certain words of section 3304(d) to its legislative history. When the words of a statute "are reasonably free from ambiguity and uncertainty, the courts will look no further to ascertain its meaning." (Golden Valley, supra, 98 Cal. App.4th at p. 375, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 642.) The CDC satisfied the requirements of those words.
We turn to the language of sections 19635 and 19574, but as we shall demonstrate, we find nothing in these statutes or section 3304(d) which suggests that section 3304(d) requires this formal notice.
Section 19635 provides:
The requirements of a formal notice of adverse action are provided for in section 19574: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Breslin v. City and County of San Francisco
...out in section 3304, which is part of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. (See Sulier v. State Personnel Bd. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 21, 24, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 (Sulier); see also § 3300 et seq.) The act is primarily a labor relations statute, cataloging the basic rights......
-
Bettencourt v. City & County of S.F.
...(See § 8304(d).) Section 3304 is part of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. (Sulier v. State Personnel Bd. (2004) 125 Cal. App.4th 21, 24, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 615 (Sulier ).) The act is primarily a labor relations statute, cataloging the basic rights and protections that m......
-
Craig L. v. Sandy S.
... ... 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 608 ... the holding of the trial court, the state's interest in protecting the marriage and promoting family stability does not per se outweigh the ... ...
-
Cdc. v. California State Personnel Bd.
...hypothetical situation presented by appellants is not the situation that occurred in the present case. (Sulier v. State Personnel Bd (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 21, 30, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 615.) Here, appellants only had to defend statements that they made approximately two years before, well within ......