Oakland Police Officers’ Association et al. v. City of Oakland (2021) – Scott filed an amicus brief for the League of California Cities and Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association, which resulted in a decision that expressly disagrees with the Santa Ana POA decision. The decision concluded that mandatory disclosure of complaints and reports prior to any subsequent interrogation of an officer suspected of misconduct undermines a core objective of POBRA and only non-confidential material should be disclosed upon request.
San Francisco Police Officers’ Assoc. v. San Francisco Police Comm. (2018) – Filed an amicus brief for the League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties. The police association argued that the employer was obligated to arbitrate denial of a grievance alleging that the employer breached a contractual obligation to negotiate changes to its use of force policy. But the MOU only required the employer to negotiate over matters within the scope of representation and the Court of Appeal held, among other things, that establishment of a use of force policy is a management right and involves a municipality’s exercise of police power that cannot be bargained away.
County of Los Angeles v. Mendez (2017) – Submitted amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association. The case held that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s provocation doctrine was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor, the seminal case establishing that an officer’s use of force must be judged according to an objective reasonableness standard. The provocation doctrine had provided that officers could be liable for their otherwise reasonable force if they intentionally or recklessly committed an earlier Fourth Amendment violation that led to the use of force that injured plaintiff.
Hinderliter v. City of La Habra (2013) – After a personnel board upheld the termination of a police officer for dishonesty, a superior court judge determined that the dishonesty did not warrant termination of the officer’s employment. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding that the officer repeatedly lied to a superior officer and that the trial court erred in finding the City abused its discretion by terminating the officer.
Alice Robin v. City of Monrovia (2013) – Appellant Robin sued the City for allegedly retaliating against her, in violation of Title VII, after she filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. At trial, the jury was instructed to consider whether four separate actions by the City – including the offer of a retirement package known as the “Golden Handshake” – were retaliatory acts. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the City and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. Robin appealed on the grounds that the trial court erred by not giving a jury instruction that the settlement agreement offered to her as part of the Golden Handshake did not comply with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA). The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument, but it did conclude that the district court erred by declining to give an instruction setting forth the OWBPA’s requirements. Although the Court found error, it concluded that it was harmless based on the evidence at trial because it is more probable than not that the jury would have reached the same verdict even with the OWBPA instruction.
Ferguson v. City of Cathedral City (2011) – The Court of Appeal upheld termination of a police officer for solicitation of prostitution after the officer declared an earlier settlement agreement with the City “null and void” under which he had been suspended without pay. The Court of Appeal also held that the City did not violate the officer’s Skelly rights when the officer, who claimed to be unable to be able to drive the City for a Skelly meeting, was terminated without a Skelly meeting after he did not avail himself of various accommodations offered to him by the City to enable him to exercise his Skelly rights.
Thompson v. City of Monrovia (2010) – In a case handled by Scott Tiedemann and Judith Islas, the Court of Appeal, second judicial district, affirmed summary judgment in this alleged retaliation and harassment case brought by a Caucasian police officer based on alleged discriminatory treatment towards his African-American co-worker. Specifically, the officer claimed he was retaliated against for reporting alleged discriminatory treatment of his African-American co-worker and for testifying on the co-worker’s behalf in a separate lawsuit brought by the co-worker. The officer also alleged the City failed to investigate the alleged harassment and retaliation. In a lengthy opinion, the Court decisively rejected all of the officer’s arguments. Key in the court’s analysis was the long and well documented history of the officer’s performance issues. On the harassment and hostile environment claims, the Court concluded that a Caucasian officer can premise these causes of action based on an association with or advocacy on behalf of another officer’s protected classification but must show he was personally subjected to unwanted racial comments as a result of the association or advocacy and also, that the conduct was severe and pervasive, which the officer failed to so in this case.
Lopez v. Imperial County Sheriff’s Office (2008) – Two correctional officers appealed a Personnel Board ruling upholding their terminations based upon a tie vote by the Board. The correctional officers argued that their terminations should be overturned on a tie vote. The Appellate Court rejected that position affirming the trial court’s ruling that the terminations were not to be overturned but the officers were to receive a new hearing.
Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) – The California Court of Appeal held that removing a deputy sheriff from his special assignment as a pilot “without a concomitant loss of rank or pay” is not a punitive action which entitles the deputy sheriff to an administrative appeal under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act.
