In Ramirez v. City of Indio, the Court of Appeal held that a city manager had the authority to affirm, revoke, or modify the arbitrator’s advisory findings and recommendations under the Memorandum of Understanding’s appeals procedure. This case confirms that, absent sufficient contractual language to the contrary, when an MOU provides for advisory arbitration, the final decision-maker (e.g., a city manager) has the discretion to evaluate the totality of an employee’s conduct, even when certain allegations are not sustained, and the authority to make final decisions on disciplinary matters, even when an arbitrator recommends a different outcome.
Background
This case arose from the termination of a former police officer at the City of Indio Police Department.
Following an internal affairs investigation and pre-disciplinary conference, the Chief issued a final notice to terminate based on the officer’s admissions that he drove under the influence of alcohol, and the preponderance of evidence that the officer engaged in dishonest behavior and showed poor judgment that embarrassed the City and Indio Police Department. The officer appealed his termination through the appeals procedure set forth in the Memorandum of Understanding.
The appeals procedure included an advisory arbitration and the city manager was vested with power to affirm, revoke, or modify the arbitrator’s advisory findings and recommendations.
The arbitrator overturned the City’s decision to terminate, and recommended reinstatement. The arbitrator found that the City failed to prove that the officer drove under the influence of alcohol, the officer presented credible and uncontradicted evidence that officers are routinely instructed to reset their phones when they turn in their department-issued phones, and the officer “credibly testified” in explaining differences in his statements during his internal affairs investigation and his testimony in a trial.
The city manager, however, issued a final written decision rejecting the arbitrator’s advisory recommendations and upheld the termination. This decision was based on the officer’s poor judgment and conduct unbecoming an officer. Additionally, the city manager disagreed with the arbitrator, and agreed with the Chief’s findings that the City established that the officer drove under the influence, reset his department-issued phone with the intent to prevent discovery of incriminating information, and made dishonest and/or inconsistent statements during the internal affairs investigation and trial. The city manager also looked to the totality of the conduct, including matters the arbitrator found lacked relevance.
The officer challenged the city manager’s final administrative decision and petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate directing a reversal of the decision. The officer argued that the city manager failed to defer to the arbitrator’s findings on credibility and weight of evidence. The superior court denied the writ petition.
Court of Appeal
The officer appealed the superior court’s denial, continuing to challenge the procedural fairness of the City’s decision. In a published and precedential decision, however, the Court of Appeal affirmed the superior court’s ruling, focusing on due process and the scope of the city manager’s authority.
1. Due Process
The court found that the disciplinary procedures, including the advisory arbitration, provided the officer with adequate due process. Importantly, the MOU explicitly granted the city manager final decision-making authority. The Court of Appeal emphasized that due process requires a fair hearing and opportunity to respond, not a particular decision-maker.
2. Scope of City Manager’s Authority
The Court rejected the officer’s argument that the city manager was bound by the arbitrator’s factual findings. The Court held that the city manager appropriately based the termination on charged conduct including drunk driving and dishonesty, and the totality of the circumstances. The Court rejected the officer’s argument that the procedures set forth in the City’s particular MOU mandated the city manager pay deference to the arbitrator’s decision.
Case: http://sos.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1024//D082997
Citation: Ramirez v. City of Indio, No. D082997 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 13, 2024)