Herman

Herman v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 2d 691·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4113·2002 Daily Journal DAR 5343·98 Cal. App. 4th 484·2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4244
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 15, 2002No. B152534California2,036 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Johnson, J.

Petitioner Jack Herman sought a writ of mandate ordering respondent County of Los Angeles (County) to meet and confer with Herman’s former employer, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), and reach mutual agreement on his placement in a job pursuant to a contract between the two agencies. The trial court denied the writ and Herman filed a timely appeal. We reverse.

Facts and Proceedings Below

In 1997 the MTA abolished its police force and contracted with the County to provide it with law enforcement services through the County sheriff. As discussed in more detail below, the contract provides for the transfer of the MTA’s police officers to the County Sheriff’s Department if they pass the sheriff’s personnel review process. As to those MTA officers who do not pass the sheriff’s review, the contract provides in appendix A, section 2.1(A) the parties “shall meet and reach mutual agreement on the placement of such personnel.”

Herman is a former MTA police officer who did not pass the sheriff’s review process. Neither the MTA nor the County offered him an alternative position. On the contrary, representatives of the MTA and the County met and…

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.