Keylon v. City of Dos Palos CA5

Filed 7/1/14 Keylon v. City of Dos Palos CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

STACY KEYLON, F067573 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CV002744) v.

CITY OF DOS PALOS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Donald J. Proietti, Judge. Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Jesse J. Maddox and Michael D. Youril for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Thomas Perez and Thomas Perez for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- This appeal arises out of writ a proceeding concerning appellant City of Dos Palos’ (City) decision to terminate the employment of respondent Stacy Keylon.

Before her termination, Keylon participated in a pre-termination hearing. However, because Keylon was denied the opportunity to provide mitigating facts, this hearing did not comply with the due process requirements set forth in Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 215 (Skelly).1 Thereafter, Keylon met with the city manager, who upheld her termination. Keylon then participated in an arbitration hearing. The arbitrator also upheld the termination. Keylon was awarded back pay from the date of her termination until her appeal to the city manager when, in the arbitrator’s opinion, an effective Skelly hearing was held. This was a period of approximately one month. Keylon filed the underlying petition for writ of administrative mandamus challenging the arbitrator’s decision under Code of Civil Procedure2 section 1094.5. The City demurred on the ground that section 1285 et seq., applies to binding arbitration, not section 1094.5. The trial court overruled the City’s demurrer. In ruling on the petition, the trial court upheld Keylon’s termination. However, the trial court awarded Keylon back pay from the termination date to the date the City “adopted” the arbitrator’s decision, a period of approximately one year. The City argues the trial court erred in overruling its demurrer because binding arbitration is subject to review under the standard set forth in section 1286.2. This section severely restricts the circumstances under which an award can be vacated. The City alternatively asserts that the trial court erred in increasing Keylon’s back pay award because the hearing before the city manager satisfied the Skelly requirements.