Terminating the Employment Relationship

E NDNOTES

1 Kemmerer v. County of Fresno (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1426 [246 Cal.Rptr. 609]. 2 Hill v. City of Long Beach (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1684 [40 Cal.Rptr.2d 125], review den . 3 Bogacki v. Board of Supervisors (1971) 5 Cal.3d 771 [97 Cal.Rptr. 657, 489 P.2d 537]. 4 Lubey v. City and County of San Francisco (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 340, 346 [159 Cal.Rptr. 440]. 5 Williams v. Department of Water & Power (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 677, 684 [181 Cal.Rptr. 868]; Shuer v. County of San Diego (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 476, 484 [11 Cal.Rptr.3d 776] [requirement for liberty interest hearing arises when a probationary employee’s termination is based on charges of misconduct that stigmatize reputation or seriously impair her opportunity to earn a living or that might seriously damage her standing or associations in the community]. 6 Kreutzer v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 306 [82 Cal.Rptr.3d 644]. 7 Kreutzer v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 306 [82 Cal.Rptr.3d 644], citing Katzberg v. Regents of University of California (2002) 29 Cal.4th 300 [127 Cal.Rptr.2d 482, 58 P.3d 339]. 8 Lukin v. City and County of San Francisco (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 807 [232 Cal.Rptr. 1]; See Riveros v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 41 Cal.App.4th 1342, 1360 [49 Cal.Rptr.2d 238], as modified on denial of reh'g (Feb. 20, 1996) hearing is to provide an opportunity for police officer to refute the charge or offer evidence of mitigating circumstances so his/her employer can decide whether to reverse its decision]. 9 Shimoyama v. Board of Education (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d 517, 528 [174 Cal.Rptr. 748]; Caloca v. County of San Diego (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1219–1220 [85 Cal.Rptr.2d 660], review den. [damage to reputation alone is insufficient to show deprivation of constitutionally protected liberty interest; law requires there be government action and loss of government benefit for liberty interest hearing]. 10 Winter v. City of Los Angeles (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1058 [117 Cal.Rptr.2d 679]. 11 McGraw v. City of Huntington Beach (9 th Cir. 1989) 882 F.2d 384. 12 McGraw v. City of Huntington Beach (9 th Cir. 1989) 882 F.2d 384. 13 Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq. (PBOR); Gov. Code, § 3250 et seq. (FBOR). 14 Gov. Code, § 3251, subd. (a). 15 Gov. Code, § 3304, subd. (b). 16 Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 [124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774]. 17 Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 [124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774]. 18 Gilbert v. City of Sunnyvale (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 1264 [31 Cal.Rptr.3d 297]. 19 Hall-Villareal v. City of Fresno (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 24 [125 Cal.Rptr.3d 376], rehg. den. 20 Flippin v. Los Angeles City Bd. of Civil Service Commissioners (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 272 [55 Cal.Rptr.3d 458]. 21 Gov. Code, § 3254, subd. (f) (FBOR), 3304, subd. (f) (POBR). 22 See Leong v. Potter (9th Cir. 2003) 347 F.3d 1117, 1124 [plaintiff was subject to “Last Chance Agreement” negotiated as an alternative to termination after earlier serious violations of Postal Service rules]; Robison v. City of Manteca (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 452 [92 Cal.Rptr.2d 748]. 23 Thomas v. City of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal. 1987) 676 F.Supp. 976. 24 Mendoza v. Regents of University of California (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 168, 173 [144 Cal.Rptr. 117]; Barber v. State Personnel Bd. (1976) 18 Cal.3d 395, 403 [134 Cal.Rptr. 206, 556 P.2d 306].

Terminating the Employment Relationship ©2019 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 131