Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace

Morrison v. Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Board of Commissioners The Court of Appeal ruled that a board considering the recommendation of an arbitrator violated Government Code section 54957 by not providing the employee with 24-hours notice of his or her right to have the complaints or charges heard in open session before the board reviewed the arbitration record supporting the arbitrator’s recommendation, 306 especially where the Board rejected the arbitrator’s recommendation and, instead, imposed termination.

b. Notice and Reporting of Closed Session Personnel Matters Government Code section 54957.7 is similarly instructive. This section requires the legislative body of a local agency to state the reasons and authority for holding a closed session at the open session during which the closed session took place or at the next public session held by the agency. This section further provides: “Nothing in this section shall require or authorize the giving of names or other information which would constitute an invasion of privacy or otherwise unnecessarily divulge the particular facts concerning the closed session.” In order to comply with the public announcement requirements and at the same time respect an employee’s privacy rights, employee numbers, and not names, should be used when reporting personnel decisions made in closed session. This would assure an employee’s anonymity and enable an employer to comply with the Brown Act. Please note, however, that employee social security numbers must not be used in announcing the action.

City’s Overly-Cautious Notice of Personnel Matter Resulted in Insufficient Notice and City’s Termination of an Employee Deemed Null and Void 307 In October 2002, the City of King City Council held a special meeting. On the agenda for the meeting was a single item: “Per Government Code Section 54957 Public Employee (employment contract).” The minutes from this meeting stated that there was “no reportable action taken in closed session.” Several days following the meeting, Keith Breskin, the City Manager, gave Roberto Moreno, the finance director, a two-page memorandum that informed Moreno he was being terminated and detailed five alleged incidents of Moreno’s misconduct. Moreno was given no opportunity to respond to the accusations before his termination became effective. termination declared null and void. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Moreno’s petition. In addition to declaring that Moreno’s termination be declared null and void, the court awarded Moreno damages, fees, and costs. The Court of Appeal affirmed. Among other bases for its holding, the Court ruled the City’s October 17 agenda was in violation of the Brown Act because it did not provide a brief general description of the business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. The City argued that a more general description of the business on the agenda - i.e., "Moreno’s dismissal" – may Moreno filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging that the City had violated the Brown Act in terminating his employment and sought to have his

Privacy Issues in the Community College Workplace ©2019 (c) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 98