Cole

Cole v. City of L.A. CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 25, 2022B304028California7,561 words

Opinion

Opinion

Baker, J.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Pertinent Policies 1. The memorandum of understanding During the relevant time period (specifically from July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2019), attorneys employed by the Office were covered by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that included a grievance procedure. The MOU defined a grievance as “a dispute concerning . . . departmental rules and regulations governing personnel practices or working conditions . . . .” The MOU outlines a four-step grievance process. An employee is responsible for initiating an informal discussion of the issue with

2 her immediate supervisors, and then for serving a grievance initiation form that triggers a management review if the issue is not resolved. If the grievance is not resolved following management review, the employee may pursue a written appeal to the City Attorney. And if that does not resolve the issue, the Los Angeles City Attorneys Association, which represents attorney employees, may make a written request for arbitration.

2. The outside employment memorandum In January 2016, the City Attorney’s Chief of Staff, Leela Kapur (Kapur), distributed a memorandum advising employees they were required to obtain…

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.