Burrell

Burrell v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 324·209 Cal. App. 3d 568·257 Cal. Rptr. 427
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 10, 1989No. B027696California7,089 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Boren, J.

In this consolidated appeal, we consider the constitutionality of a portion of section 112 of the City Charter of Los Angeles. Section 112 gives a city employee the right to have the disciplinary measures ordered by an official in his or her department reviewed by the board of civil service commissioners (the Board). However, this charter provision limits the ability of the Board to reduce the disciplinary penalty by requiring that any reduction in the penalty recommended by the Board be consented to by the same official who originally imposed the discipline. In both of the cases before us, the trial courts declared unconstitutional the consent requirement of section 112, finding that it amounts to a denial of the due process rights of city employees to a fair and impartial hearing.

Facts

This appeal consolidates two separate trial court actions: Los Angeles City Employees Union v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (Super. Ct. *573 L.A. County, No. C603176) (the Godino case) and Burrell v. City of Los Angeles (Super. Ct. L.A. County, No. C633835) (the Burrell case).

a. The Godino Case

The City of Los Angeles employed Richard Godino as the aquatic director of the…

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.