Benefield

Benefield v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION

Good Law
171 Cal. App. 4th 469·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 196·89 Cal. Rptr. 3d 608
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 2009H031816California3,527 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mihara, J.

Appellant, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), appeals from the trial court’s judgment ordering it to dismiss adverse actions against respondents Ronald Sphar and Robert Martin, and to reinstate them to their employment. CDCR asserts that the trial court erroneously concluded that CDCR violated the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA; Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq.) because the notices of adverse action served on Martin and Sphar bore the signature of someone other than the person who had decided on the level of discipline. We conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by substantial evidence, and we reverse.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In February 2004, Correctional Officer Marta Jaramillo reported to CDCR that a group of correctional officers, including Sphar and Martin, had been involved in an incident of misconduct on November 3, 2003. In February 2004, CDCR commenced an investigation of this incident. Sphar and Martin were interviewed and denied committing any misconduct. The investigation was completed, and a meeting was held on November 3, 2004, to consider the results of the investigation.

Cheryl…

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.