Otto

Otto v. Los Angeles Unified School District

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 2d 664·89 Cal. App. 4th 985
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 7, 2001B141388California5,300 words

Opinion

Opinion

Croskey, J.

In this appeal, we decide the question whether a written memorandum, which documents a meeting between a public safety officer and his supervisor and which is placed in the officer’s personnel file, qualifies as punitive action and warrants the administrative appeal provided for in Government Code sections 3303 and 3304. The trial court ruled that such written memoranda placed in the personnel files of the two appellants in this matter do not constitute written reprimands and, on that basis, denied their request for writ of mandamus relief.

Existing law compels the conclusion that it is the contents of the memorandum, not its title or the lack of a disciplinary intent, that determines the issue of “punitive action.” Applying that standard to the record before us, we will conclude that in this case, and under the specific facts here presented, the trial court was correct as to one officer and in error as to the other. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part.

Factual and Procedural Background

1. Procedural Background

This case began on February 3, 2000, when Kevin Otto (Otto) and Alex Barrios (Barrios; collectively petitioners) filed a Code of Civil Procedure…

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.