Kazensky

Kazensky v. City of Merced

Bad Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 570·65 Cal. App. 4th 44·76 Cal. Rptr. 2d 356·98 Daily Journal DAR 7127·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4987
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 24, 1998F028725California10,484 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ardaiz, J.

Introduction

It has long been the rule that “[t]he penalty imposed by an administrative body will not be disturbed in mandamus proceedings unless an abuse of discretion is demonstrated” and that “[njeither an appellate court nor a trial court is free to substitute its discretion for that of the administrative agency concerning the degree of punishment imposed.” (Barber v. State Personnel Bd. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 395, 404 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 206 , 556 P.2d 306 ].)" In part II of this opinion we apply this well-established rule, and we conclude that the City of Merced did not abuse its discretion in terminating the employment of two city mechanics who committed numerous and repeated violations of the city’s personnel rules.

Eugene Kazensky and Rusty Mileur (hereafter sometimes respondents) were mechanics employed by the City of Merced. The city attempted to discover a possible cause of vandalism to city vehicles by installing a hidden video surveillance camera at the city shop where the vehicles were repaired. The hidden camera did not film any incidents of vandalism, but did capture respondents taking grossly excessive breaks. It also captured respondent Mileur engaging in other…

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.