Hinchliffe

Hinchliffe v. City of San Diego

Good Law
165 Cal. App. 3d 722·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 1763·211 Cal. Rptr. 560
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 1985Civ. 31076California1,748 words

Opinion

Opinion

Work, J.

Debra Hinchliffe was hired as a probationary police officer. While still on probation, she was discharged without a hearing before the civil service commission (Commission). Claiming section 129 of the San Diego City Charter (Charter) on the date of her hiring granted such a hearing, she sought a writ of mandate. We hold Hinchliffe’s hearing rights created by the Charter were not vested so as to be immune from modification by the electorate. Thus, the Charter amendment eliminating Commission review for probationary employees did not impinge any constitutionally protected right of previously hired probationary personnel. We affirm the denial of Hinchliffe’s petition for writ of mandate.

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 23, 1979, Hinchliffe was hired as a police officer I, a classified service position (Charter § 117) subject to a two-year probationary period. At that time, Charter section 129 provided: “Any officer or employee of this City in the classified service may be removed from the office or employment for cause by the appointing authority. Written notice of removal given to any officer or employee, . . . shall be sufficient to put any removal into…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.