From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

California Dept. of Mental Health v. California State Personnel Board

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Sep 2, 2008
2d Civil B204296 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 2, 2008)

Opinion

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo Super. Ct. No. CV 060655, Charles S. Crandall, Judge.

K. William Curtis, Chief Counsel, Department of Personnel Administation, State of California, Warren C. Stracener, Deputy Chief Counsel, James C. Spurling, Assistant Chief Counsel and Joan E. Branin, Labor Relations Counsel, for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest.


YEGAN, J.

California Department of Mental Health (DMH) appeals from an order denying its petition for administrative mandamus in an employee disciplinary matter. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) DMH dismissed Joseph M. Martinez, a peace officer at Atascadero State Hospital (ASH), for sleeping on duty and being dishonest in not admitting it. The California State Personnel Board (Board), in a three-two decision, reduced the penalty to a six month suspension without pay. Finding no abuse of discretion, the trial court denied the writ petition. We exercise restraint and, consistent with time-honored rules, affirm.

Whatever the cause of Martinez being “less than alert,” it is apparent that his superiors have lost confidence in his ability to perform as a peace officer. This should give Martinez cause for concern.

Facts and Procedural History

On the morning of April 21, 2004, Martinez and Officer Lloyd Clark transported several ASH inmates (mentally disordered offenders and sexually violent predators) to and from the San Luis Obispo County Courthouse for hearings. Later that day, one inmate was brought to the courthouse for an afternoon hearing.

Officer Clark took the inmate to Department Six while Martinez parked the van. Martinez said that he needed to rest his eyes and left for 60 minutes.

Sheriff's Sergeant Frank Eggers was collecting paperwork and took a shortcut through Department Two which was locked and not in use. Martinez was sitting at counsel's table with his chin on his chest, wearing dark glasses. The lights were dimmed because the light system detected no movement. Sergeant Eggers believed Martinez was sleeping and bumped a chair to rouse him. Martinez raised his head and said hello.

Sergeant Eggers made his rounds and returned 15 minutes later. Martinez was in the same chair with his chin on his chest. Sergeant Eggers roused him again and asked if he was okay.

Sergeant Eggers thought "We might have a problem" and left to find Officer Clark. Officer Clark was in the inmate holding area drinking coffee. Martinez had already relieved him and was in Department Six with the inmate.

ASH conducted an internal affairs investigation and interviewed Martinez twice. Martinez told Lieutenant Dave Landrum that he was resting his eyes because of the light glare. Martinez went to a vacant courtroom and sat at the table so no one would think he was hiding. He claimed it was a lunch break even though he was working a "straight eight shift" with no lunch breaks.

A week after the incident, Martinez told his supervisor, Sergeant Brad Humphrey, that he was having trouble staying awake in courtrooms. Martinez had worked graveyard shift for a number of years and was still adjusting to the day shift schedule.

Martinez was dismissed and appealed. (Gov. Code, §§ 19574-19575.) At the administrative hearing, Martinez stated that he went to a vacant courtroom to rest his eyes and wore tinted prescription glasses to reduce the glare. Crediting Sergeant Eggers' testimony, the administrative law judge (ALJ) found an inexcusable neglect of duty and that Martinez's "denials constitute dishonesty. . . ." The ALJ sustained the dismissal.

Board reviewed the matter and found that Martinez was not asleep and that he was only “less than alert.” It reduced the penalty to a six month job suspension.

Discussion

The question presented is whether Board's penalty-reducing decision is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (Barber v. State Personnel Bd. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 395, 404; Lowe v. Civil Service Com. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 667, 674.) Board adopted the ALJ's findings but did not accept the finding that Martinez was sleeping. Instead, it found that Martinez was "less than alert while on duty. . . ."

DMH strenuously disputes Martinez's testimony but the evidence is less than clear that he was sleeping on duty. Sergeant Eggers could not see his eyes and reported that Martinez was "maybe sleeping or resting." If Martinez was asleep, it is illogical that he would stay in the courtroom only to be caught again. Martinez told his partner that his eyes were really bothering him, that he was taking a break to rest his eyes in another courtroom, and that he could be called on his radio.

DMH is concerned that Martinez’s penchant for "resting his eyes" could lead to prisoner escape. It argues that reinstatement is inappropriate given Martinez's disciplinary record for sleeping on the job and dishonesty. Martinez was disciplined on three prior occasions. In 1994, he received a 12 month, 10 percent pay reduction for submitting a reimbursement claim for uniforms not purchased. In 1996, he received a 12 month, 10 percent pay reduction for sleeping on duty twice. Martinez claimed he was taking medication that made him drowsy and working excessive overtime. In 1997, Martinez was disciplined for oversleeping and being late for work three times. Martinez was taking pain medication and stressed about a custody dispute. He was suspended from work for 30 days.

" '[T]he overriding consideration in these cases is the extent to which the employee's conduct resulted in, or if repeated is likely to result in, "[h]arm to the public service." [Citations.] Other relevant factors include the circumstances surrounding the misconduct and the likelihood of its recurrence.' [Citation.] The public is entitled to protection from unprofessional employees whose conduct places people at risk of injury and the government at risk of incurring liability. [Citation.]" (Hankla v. Long Beach Civil Service Com. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1222-1223; see also Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 218.)

Board found that Martinez did not put the public at immediate risk even though he took a rest break in a place where he was not supposed to be. It found that the likelihood of recurrence was low and that a six month suspension should put Martinez on notice that the misconduct was serious and would not be tolerated.

DMH complains that Board's findings do not bridge the analytic gap between the evidence and its decision. (See e.g., Topanga Ass'n for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.) Board found Martinez was on his break but Lieutenant Landrum testified that hospital police officers are on "straight eight shifts" and not entitled to lunch breaks. On cross-examination, Landrum admitted that it was common and acceptable practice for transportation officers to take breaks while at court. We reject the argument that the matter should be remanded to the Board to make findings consistent with the decision. (Cal. Administrative Mandamus (Cont.Ed.Bar 3rd ed. 2008) § 16.57, p. 644; see Saad v. City of Berkeley (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1206, 1216 [defect in administrative finding causes prejudice only when it affects the ultimate decision].)

DMH argues that a dishonest peace officer is of no use to an employer and that Martinez made false statements which were harmful to the department. It is readily apparent, however, that the Board does not believe Martinez is a dishonest police officer. Martinez denied being asleep but admitted that resting in the dark courtroom was wrong and apologized. Martinez told Lieutenant Landrum, “I’m not trying trying to make excuses and I’m not trying to place the blame on anybody or anything. I’m totally responsible for my behavior, . . . the artificial lights have been giving me trouble." Unlike the internal affairs investigation in Kolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Com. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 716, 721,Martinez was not part of a “cover up,” did not lie to protect a fellow officer in a prisoner abuse case, or admit that he had perjured himself. At oral argument, DMH submitted that, based on Kolender anabuse of discretion appears as a matter of law. In our view, Kolender is an extreme case and not here controlling. Similarly, the case on which it relies, Hankla v. Long Beach Civil Service Com. (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1216, is another extreme case. [Officer shooting a citizen.]

The trial court found that "Board recognized that Martinez' decision to rest his eyes in the empty courtroom was a poor one, but it also found that there were several important mitigating factors, including that Martinez did not have actual responsibility for a patient, that the last of Martinez's prior adverse employment actions was seven years ago, and that he had a long record of state service, with commendations." The trial court, in denying the writ petition, concluded that the six month job suspension was a discretionary call and supported by the evidence. "[W]here you're talking about the penalty, [Board has] even more discretion. It's something that they deal with all the time."

Like the trial court, except in extreme cases, we defer to the Board as to the severity of the penalty to be imposed. (Kazensky v. City of Merced (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 44, 54.) " 'Courts should let administrative boards and officers work out their problems with as little judicial interference as possible. . . . Such boards are vested with a high discretion and its abuse must appear very clearly before the courts will interfere.' [Citations.]" (Landau v. Superior Court (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 191, 218.)

Here the 3-2 decision fortifies the conclusion that reasonable minds may differ as to whether Martinez should be terminated from state employment. (See e.g., Pegues v. Civil Service Com. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 95, 107.) Martinez admitted that he exercised poor judgment in taking a rest break where and when he did, and apologized for discrediting the department and fellow officers. Board found that it was serious misconduct but concluded that the penalty should be reduced based on Martinez's apology and 16 years of service with commendations. It considered the entire internal affairs investigation, the administrative hearing testimony, Martinez's lengthy employment history, whether the misconduct endangered public safety, and the likelihood of its recurrence. Based on the totality of the record, we cannot say that the decision to impose a six month job suspension was an abuse of discretion. "Judicial interference with the agency's assessment of a penalty 'will only be sanctioned when there is an arbitrary, capricious or patently abusive exercise of discretion by the administrative agency.' [Citation.]" (Kazensky v. City of Merced, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 54.)

The judgment (order denying writ petition) is affirmed. The parties are to bear their own costs on appeal.

We concur: GILBERT, P.J. COFFEE, J.


Summaries of

California Dept. of Mental Health v. California State Personnel Board

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
Sep 2, 2008
2d Civil B204296 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 2, 2008)
Case details for

California Dept. of Mental Health v. California State Personnel Board

Case Details

Full title:CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: Sep 2, 2008

Citations

2d Civil B204296 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 2, 2008)