Sergio Ramirez was a police officer with the City of Indio Police Department. Ramirez was charged with rape and sexual assault of his 18-year-old niece. The City placed Ramirez on administrative leave and initiated an internal affairs investigation. A jury later acquitted Ramirez of all criminal charges.
The City’s IA investigation resulted in two conflicting reports. The sergeant who conducted the initial investigation concluded that Ramirez had violated multiple Department policies, including misrepresenting material facts, dishonest or disgraceful off-duty conduct affecting the officer’s relationship with the Department, and conduct reflecting unfavorably on the Department. After further investigation, a different sergeant concluded that the policy violations were “not sustained.”
The Chief issued a Notice of Intent to Terminate Ramirez and conducted a pre-disciplinary Skelly conference in September. After considering all facts, the Chief issued a Notice of Termination. The Notice explained that the Department would terminate Ramirez’s employment based on his admission that he drove under the influence of alcohol alone, but the preponderance of the evidence also established that he was dishonest and showed poor judgment that embarrassed the City and the Department. Ramirez appealed the Chief’s decision through the administrative appeal process outlined in the MOU between the City and the Indio POA.
The mutually agreed upon arbitrator conducted a three-day virtual evidentiary hearing. After the hearing, the arbitrator recommended Ramirez’s reinstatement with full back pay and benefits. The arbitrator opined that the City failed to carry its burden to establish that: Ramirez drove under the influence of alcohol; reset his Department-issued cell phone with an intent to destroy evidence; lied about his actions; and made inconsistent statements during his IA interviews and at trial with an intent to lie or misrepresent his actions.
After reviewing the arbitrator’s advisory findings and recommendations, and all of the materials from the investigation and trial, the City Manager issued a final written decision, rejecting the arbitrator’s advisory findings and recommendation and affirming Ramirez’s termination. The City Manager cited Ramirez’s poor judgment, dishonesty, and conduct unbecoming of an officer and bringing discredit and embarrassment to the City.
Ramirez petitioned the Superior Court for a writ of mandate, arguing that the City Manager should have deferred to the arbitrator’s findings on the weight and credibility of the evidence. The Superior Court denied the petition, affirming the City Manager’s decision. Ramirez appealed.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court. The Court held that the express language of the MOU gave the City Manager final authority to make disciplinary decisions, including the power to reject the arbitrator’s advisory findings. The Court rejected both Ramirez’s argument that the City Manager was required to defer to the arbitrator’s determinations of the relevancy, weight and credibility of testimony and evidence during the hearing, and that the City Manager had to afford the advisory findings “great weight.”
The Court also found that the City Manager had conducted a thorough review of the arbitrator’s recommendations and the evidence before making the final decision, as was required by the MOU, and even went further by reviewing additional relevant documents and the transcripts and providing a detailed analysis supporting his conclusion.
Finally, the Court concluded that the administrative appeal process provided Ramirez with due process, as it included notice, an opportunity to respond, and a meaningful hearing.
Ramirez v. City of Indio, 105 Cal.App.5th 939 (2024).