Cilderman

Cilderman v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 980·67 Cal. App. 4th 1466·80 Cal. Rptr. 2d 20·98 Daily Journal DAR 12031·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8676
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 24, 1998No. B118436California1,573 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Epstein, J.

In this case, we hold that the Los Angeles Police Department (the Department) properly extended the probationary period for police officer Jan Cilderman in accordance with its rules. For that reason, when Mr. *1468 Cilderman was terminated before the conclusion of the extended probationary period, he was not entitled to the due process rights of a tenured officer. We reverse the trial court’s order issuing a writ of mandate.

Factual and Procedural Summary

Respondent Jan Cilderman was appointed to the position of Los Angeles Police Officer on April 17, 1995. On that date, he began serving the 18-month probationary period required by section 109 of the Los Angeles City Charter.

Section 109(c) of the Los Angeles City Charter provides: “At or before the expiration of the probationary period, the appointing authority of the department or office in which the candidate is employed may terminate him upon assigning in writing the reasons therefor to said board. Unless he is thus terminated during the probationary period his appointment shall be deemed complete.”

An officer who completes the probationary period becomes a tenured officer entitled to the procedural protections of…

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.