Florio
Florio v. City of Ontario
Opinion
Opinion
Gaut, J.
1. Introduction
The City of Ontario appeals a judgment in favor of April Florio. Florio, a former Ontario employee, challenged a provision of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the city and the San Bernardino Public Employees Association (SBPEA) requiring the city and the employee share equally the cost of a hearing officer in an employee’s appeal. The trial court held the cost-sharing provision was unconstitutional and ordered Florio be reimbursed for her share of the cost of an appeal.
We agree the cost-sharing provision is unconstitutional and its unconstitutionality was not contractually waived by the MOU. We affirm the judgment.
2. Factual and Procedural Background
Florio was a police dispatcher. After the city terminated her employment on December 19, 2002, she appealed the termination. Article 7.1.E.5 of the MOU states: “The cost of the Hearing Officer’s services shall be shared equally between the City and the appellant.” After four days of hearing, the hearing officer found in favor of the city and against Florio. She had to pay $3,290 as her share of the cost of the hearing. Florio then filed a complaint for damages seeking recovery of the $3,290,…