Giuffre v. Sparks

Statement of the Case and Facts

On February 14, 1997, during an argument with a girlfriend, Senior Sheriffs Deputy Joseph Giuffre (Giuffre) threatened suicide. When questioned by his superiors about the incident, he admitted making the statement but denied any intention of suicide. As a result of this incident, on May 20, 1997, Giuffre was suspended from the SWAT team for a six-month period. At the time the suspension was issued, Giuffre had been a member of the SWAT team for 11 years and was ranked as a senior deputy. On September 3, 1997, which was prior to the expiration of the six-month suspension, Giuffre was involved in a dispute with his ex-wife, Winnifred Doane, over child visitation issues. During a long-distance telephone conversation, Giuffre threatened to kill Doane.

On February 3, 1998, the assistant sheriff issued a written reprimand to Giuffre stating that the threat to Doane constituted a “technical violation of the law” as well as a violation of the Kern County Sheriffs Departmental Policies and Procedures Manual. The written reprimand also stated that as a result of the two incidents, it was the intention of the sheriff’s department to remove Giuffre from the SWAT team and issue a referral to the employee assistance program. The February 3, 1998, letter also notified Giuffre that he was entitled to “appeal this action through your chain of command to the Sheriff-Coroner” in accordance with departmental policy No. D-400.

Policy No. D-400 stated that departmental employees were not entitled to appeal written reprimands and disciplinary transfers to the civil service commission. The only avenue of recourse specified was an administrative appeal through the chain of command to the sheriff-coroner. The procedure established for the administrative appeal provided that the officer could submit a written account of the events, together with any pertinent documentation. The sheriff-coroner would then review the documentation, meet with the officer, and allow the officer to state his position.

Giuffre and his attorney participated in a hearing with the sheriff-coroner on February 11, 1998. Subsequently, the sheriff-coroner, Carl Sparks, issued a March 4, 1998, letter to Giuffre upholding the written reprimand and

action of a demotion and loss of pay. Petitioner contends that the administrative appeal and hearing that he was afforded did not satisfy his right to due process.

“It is held that the Sheriff has the authority and discretion to assign and reassign deputies under his command to different duty categories in his department. Reassignment out of SWAT is not a demotion in rank or title of the deputy involved. It is not a reduction in pay of the deputy involved, even though it results in a loss of the ‘perk,’ five percent of salary that SWAT members receive. Petitioner naturally cannot expect to continue to receive such ‘perk’ when he is no longer a member of SWAT.

“Pursuant to the MOU, petitioner was accorded the appeal procedure and hearing to which he was entitled. He is not entitled to anything more, under the circumstances, even though he would have been entitled to a full evidentiary hearing, had he filed a ‘grievance’ with the Sheriff’s department, which he did not do.

“The transfer out of SWAT was not a demotion or a dismissal from employment such as to require appeal rights beyond the administrative appeal which petitioner was afforded and which he used.

“It is noted that, as a result of the hearing before Sheriff Sparks, the written reprimand that petitioner received was modified to provide petitioner an opportunity for reinstatement to SWAT after January 1, 1999. The hearing that petitioner was given satisfied any due process rights that he had.”

Giuffre filed his notice of appeal of the denial of the petition for writ of mandate on May 12, 1998. On July 9, 1999, this court requested supplemental briefing from the parties.

Introduction

Both Giuffre and the county concede that the action taken against Giuffre constitutes a punitive action within the meaning of section 3300. They differ, however, on whether the meeting with the sheriff-coroner in accordance with departmental policy No. D-400 and paragraph 11 of the MOU satisfies the section 3304 requirement that Giuffre be afforded an administrative hearing with respect to any punitive action taken against him. In accordance with Runyan v. Ellis (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 961 [ 47

Although section 3304 specifies that the officer must be provided an opportunity for an administrative appeal, it does not specify how the appeal process is to be implemented. At a minimum, section 3304 has been held to require that the officer be afforded an evidentiary hearing before a neutral fact finder. (Runyan v. Ellis, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 966; Gray v. City of Gustine (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 621 , 631-632 [ 273 Cal.Rptr. 730 ].)

Although the county acknowledges in its brief, and the trial court found, that Giuffre was not afforded a full evidentiary hearing, the county argues that the due process requirements of section 3304 were met because the hearing before the sheriff-coroner complies with the procedures set forth in the MOU. Citing Stanton v. City of West Sacramento (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1438 [ 277 Cal.Rptr. 478 ], among other cases, the county contends that when the MOU establishes an administrative appeal process, the due process requirements of section 3304 are met and the process is not subject to scrutiny by the courts. As set forth, post, we disagree.

In Stanton, a written reprimand was issued to the officer in question; no other action, such as reassignment or loss of pay, accompanied the reprimand. The officer was notified that he could appeal the reprimand to the chief of police. (Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1440-1441.) The Stanton court found that the appeal process set forth in the MOU satisfied the requirements of section 3304 because the chief of police had not been involved in the investigation of the matters that led to the written reprimand; the officer had been provided an opportunity to present evidence in the hearing before the chief of police; and the officer had the opportunity to be represented by counsel at the hearing. (226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1443.) Stanton based its holding, in part, on a conclusion that the due process requirements of Shelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 [ 124 Cal.Rptr. 14 , 539 P.2d 774 ] did not apply to instances where the only punitive action taken was a written reprimand. (Stanton v. City of West Sacramento, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at p. 1442.)

We need not decide whether we agree with the Stanton court’s interpretation of Shelly because Stanton is readily distinguishable from the case presently before us. First, the punitive action taken against Giuffre went beyond a written reprimand; unlike the officer in Stanton, Giuffre was reassigned, with a resulting loss of pay. Moreover, the California Supreme Court has indicated that Shelly applies when an action results in a reduction in pay. (White v. County of Sacramento, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 682.) Second,

In Runyan, the police department issued a written reprimand to an officer and temporarily transferred the officer to a new duty assignment as a result of the officer’s failure to comply with the standards of deportment for a police officer. The new duty assignment paid less than the previous assignment, although it did not involve a loss of rank. The officer was afforded a hearing before the city manager, in accordance with the MOU between the city and the police officers’ association. The decision of the city manager was final, and no appeal to the civil service commission was afforded the officer. The appellate court concluded that the action taken against the officer was punitive within the meaning of section 3303 and that the hearing before the city manager was insufficient as a matter of law to comply with due process and the requirements of section 3304, subdivision (b). (Runyan v. Ellis, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at pp. 964-965.)

Although the appellate court in Runyan concluded that the meeting with the city manager as provided for in the MOU was a necessary step in the administrative appeal process, it was not sufficient to meet the mandate of the Bill of Rights Act. (Runyan v. Ellis, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 967.) The hearing before the city manager did not involve the type of evidentiary hearing contemplated by section 3304; there was no sworn testimony and cross-examination of witnesses, or presentation of argument by the city to which Runyan and his counsel could respond. (40 Cal.App.4th at p. 966.)

It is apparent that Giuffre was not afforded an evidentiary hearing before the sheriff-coroner; the procedures set forth for the administrative appeal in policy No. D-400 do not provide for an evidentiary hearing and the trial court found no such evidentiary hearing had been afforded Giuffre. Under the holdings of both Stanton and Runyan, Giuffre was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing as a matter of law in order to satisfy the due process requirements of section 3304. It is only where the peace officer is an at-will employee that courts have found no absolute right to a full evidentiary hearing. (See Holmes v. Hallinan (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1523 , 1531 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 174 ].)

We reject as without merit the county’s contention that once administrative appeal procedures are established pursuant to an MOU, those procedures

Further, in at least one case, Coloca v. County of San Diego (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1209 [ 85 Cal.Rptr.2d 660 ], the appellate court held that the officers were entitled to an administrative appeal before the civil service commission. When a citizens advisory group prepared a report concluding that certain officers had engaged in serious misconduct warranting discipline, even though the sheriff’s department had not actually imposed discipline, the appellate court concluded that because the report would be placed in the officers’ personnel files, the officers had been subjected to punitive action within the meaning of section 3303. Thus, even though the procedures

As for the contention that reassignment of an officer that results in a loss of special assignment pay is a purely discretionary act and therefore not appealable beyond the sheriff-coroner, such a contention is contrary to established case law. A reassignment of an officer from a position that paid special duty pay to a position that did not gamer such pay, was held to be per se disciplinary in nature, thus any officer subject to such reassignment was to be afforded an administrative appeal within the meaning of section 3304. (White v. County of Sacramento, supra, 31 Cal.3d at pp. 683-684.)

Neither do we find convincing the argument that Giuffre had to have filed' a formal grievance in order to invoke the right to a full evidentiary hearing. First, the written reprimand specifically notified him that his only recourse regarding the action taken against him was an appeal to the sheriff-coroner; the written reprimand also referred to departmental policy No. D-400. That policy purported to set forth the administrative appeal procedures available to Giuffre, with which Giuffre fully complied. The county first claimed that a formal grievance had to be filed after Giuffre filed his petition for writ of mandate. Unlike the factual situation in Doyle, the record does not disclose that Giuffre was notified of, and failed to take, additional action in order to obtain a full evidentiary hearing. (Doyle v. City of Chino, supra, 117 Cal.App.3d at pp. 676-677.) Second, under the analysis in Runyan, the county is required as a matter of law to provide for a full evidentiary hearing as part of the administrative appeal process in order to satisfy due process and the requirements of section 3304; the MOU and policy No. D-400 do not so provide. (Runyan v. Ellis, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at pp. 964-965.)

We do not disagree with the county’s contention that it is within the purview of local governments to establish the administrative appeal procedures. We do not purport here to establish those procedures. The issue is whether those procedures, as set forth in the MOU and departmental policy No. D-400, satisfy due process and section 3304. We conclude they do not. (Runyan v. Ellis, supra, 40 Cal.App.4th at p. 967.) Because the administrative appeal afforded to Giuffre did not provide him with a full evidentiary hearing, and according to the MOU he could obtain such a hearing only before the civil service commission, he has a right to an administrative appeal before that body. (Ibid.)

The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs are awarded to appellant.

Ardaiz, P. J., and Thaxter, J., concurred.

Respondent’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied March 15, 2000.