Marlon Quesada joined the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Department) in 1995. The Department suspended Quesada twice for misconduct: once in 1999; and again in 2012.
In 2015, the Department launched another administrative investigation into Quesada’s conduct. That investigation, centered on allegations of fraternization and misconduct, was ultimately dismissed as untimely in 2017. The Department classified the case as “inactivated,” meaning no findings were made regarding Quesada’s guilt or innocence.
In 2017 and 2019, Quesada sought a promotion to sergeant. The Department utilized a comprehensive process that included evaluating candidates on written test scores; professional evaluations; disciplinary records; and other performance factors. Quesada scored well in the written exams—placing in Band Two in 2017 and Band One in 2019. But, Quesada’s evaluations consistently rated him as “Competent,” with no “Outstanding” ratings in any category.
In 2019, Quesada’s application for promotion to sergeant was rated overall “Very Good.” But, the rater said Quesada did not have the skills and qualities for a sergeant. The rater’s reasons were that Quesada was “generally a mediocre employee” who “did not have the best work ethic.” Quesada was not recommended for promotion.
Quesada filed a petition for a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. Quesada sought to compel the Department to promote him to sergeant and to give him back salary and interest, among other penalties. To obtain this writ, the burden was on Quesada to show that: Quesada had no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy; the County had a clear and present duty to act in Quesada’s interest; and Quesada had a beneficial right to the County’s performance of that duty. Quesada alleged the Department used the 2015 time-barred, “inactivated” investigation against him during the promotional review process. In a 27-page single-spaced opinion, the trial court denied Quesada’s petition. Quesada appealed.
Quesada argued that the California Court of Appeal should adopt the burden-shifting approach as to the production of evidence that is used in civil rights cases. The Court declined because Quesada was not claiming the Department discriminated against him on grounds of race or because he belongs to a historically oppressed and disfavored group. Instead, Quesada was claiming that the Department improperly referred to an inactivated investigation in passing him over for promotion.
The Court found substantial evidence to support the Department’s decision, highlighting Quesada’s mediocre evaluations, history of misconduct, and lack of exceptional performance. The Department has discretion in promotion decisions to ensure the integrity and trustworthiness of its leadership. The Court affirmed the judgment and awarded costs to the County.
Quesada v. County of Los Angeles, 2024 Cal.App. LEXIS 733.