Camarena v. State Personnel Bd.

California Court of Appeal Mar 24, 1997 No. G019497Published

Before: Sonenshine

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an appointing power may delegate the authority to sign a notice of adverse action to a representative, and that substantial evidence supported the findings of misconduct justifying the employee's discharge.

Issues

Whether the Department of Food and Agriculture could properly delegate the authority to sign a notice of adverse action to a fair manager.
Whether there was substantial evidence to support the State Personnel Board's findings of misconduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The appointing power [here, DFA], or its authorized representative, may take adverse action against an employee.”

“Clearly, DFA, the appointing power, may delegate the duty of executing adverse actions to the fair manager because no law expressly prohibits such delegation.”

“We apply the substantial evidence test in reviewing a decision of the board.”

Opinion

SONENSHINE, J.

Kenneth J. Camarena appeals from a superior court judgment denying his petition for writ of mandate in a case arising out of Camarena’s disciplinary discharge from his employment. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

Camarena was an employee of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA). He was a maintenance mechanic in charge of the mechanic shop at the 32d District Agricultural Association (DAA) Orange County Fair. On February 18, 1992, he gave a new 121-volt battery owned by the fair to a coworker, Fernando Esquivel, for Esquivel’s personal use. At the same time, Esquivel gave Camarena $10. The fair’s management learned about the transaction from Albert Aguirre, Camarena’s assistant, and asked the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to investigate.

On June 6, Esquivel was notified of a five-day suspension for misuse of state property. A few days later, Camarena threatened Aguirre, waving a document in his face, calling him a “rat,” and making a throat-slashing gesture. And on June 20, he pretended to point a gun at Aguirre as the two crossed paths in the parking lot. Believing Camarena wanted to kill him, Aguirre reported the threats to a coworker and to law enforcement officials.

On June 24, consistent with DFA procedures, Norman Bartosik, DAA’s secretary-manager of the fair, signed a notice of adverse action against

[701]

Camarena, advising him of his discharge based on dishonesty, misuse of state property and threats against Aguirre. Camarena immediately filed a notice of disciplinary appeal.

The administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld Camarena’s discharge, finding the three bases for the adverse action were established by a preponderance of evidence. He further found even though DAA was not Camarena’s employer, its fair manager, Bartosik, had authority to act as DFA’s agent, and DFA properly delegated the authority. Concurring with these findings, the State Personnel Board (the board) adopted the ALJ’s proposed decision.

Camarena petitioned for writ of mandate in the superior court, seeking reinstatement with backpay and restoration of all benefits. For reasons not relevant to the appeal, the court initially granted the petition, but then recalled the writ order. Upon reconsideration, it entered a judgment denying the writ.

Camarena v. State Personnel Bd.

AI Brief

SONENSHINE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief