Principles for Public Safety Employment

goals or policies of the employing agency, 2) incompatibility of management styles, or 3) a change of administration. 98 It is not completely clear what type of hearing a police chief is entitled to receive upon being discharged. In Binkley v. City of Long Beach , 99 the court held that where a terminated employee serves at the pleasure of the city manager, and the scope of the administrative appeal hearing is not prescribed by personnel rules, the adequacy of the appeal procedure afforded must be measured against constitutional due process principles. The court held that because Binkley, the police chief, held his position at the pleasure of the city manager, the City did not bear the burden of proving just cause for termination, but was only required to prove an adequate opportunity for the Chief to make a record and seek to convince the employing agency to reverse its decision. The court also held that Binkley was not entitled to confront and cross-examine witnesses. Robinson v. City of Chowchilla 100 In Robinson v. City of Chowchilla , a former chief of police sued the City that had employed him, alleging breach of contract, wrongful termination, and violations of the POBR. The Court of Appeal held that the City violated the POBR by removing the police chief from office without the requisite notice, statement of reasons, and opportunity for an administrative appeal. The court rejected the City’s arguments that it had not violated the POBR because the notice and appeal provisions apply only if a trial court first determines that a police chief has a protected property or liberty interests and that it had not “removed” the chief for purposes of the statute. The Court of Appeal found that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to show a property interest in his or her job as a police chief, and that when the City appointed an interim chief, and told the plaintiff to remove his belongings some twenty days prior to the expiration of the employment agreement, it had “removed” the plaintiff, subjecting the City to the notice and statement of reasons requirement under Government Code section 3304 (c). e. Waiver of POBR rights In Lanigan v. City of Los Angeles 101 , a police officer’s limited waiver of rights under the POBR was held valid where the officer had been terminated and chose to accept a suspension in lieu of termination in exchange for a resignation and a waiver of his POBR appeal rights in any future discipline for similar misconduct. The California Supreme Court had previously decided in County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 793 that POBR rights could be waived in certain circumstances. The waiver was enforceable in this case because the officer chose to waive his POBR rights as to specific, pending circumstances that the officer understood and considered. Conversely, the Court of Appeal held in Jaramillo v. County of Orange 102 , that blanket or pre employment waivers that apply to future, unknown circumstances are generally invalid. In Jaramill ¸ an assistant sheriff arguably waived his POBR rights upon appointment to the assistant sheriff position. The waiver did not refer specifically to POBR but did state that Jaramillo could be released from his position at any time without notice. The court found this waiver ineffective

Principles for Public Safety Employment ©2022 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 36