Marschke v. Sacramento County Civil Service Commission CA3

Filed 12/16/14 Marschke v. Sacramento County Civil Service Commission CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

STEVEN MARSCHKE, as Successor in Interest C072579 etc., (Super. Ct. No. Plaintiff and Appellant, 34201080000559CUWMGDS)

v.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,

Defendant;

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO,

Real Party in Interest and Respondent.

The sole question of law presented in this appeal is whether an employee who delayed her start date with the County of Sacramento to accommodate her personal vacation began her six-month probationary period when she signed the paperwork before she left on vacation or when she first reported to work. Appellant argues that under the relevant county ordinances and civil service rules, the employee was appointed to the

1

position when she accepted the county’s offer of employment, and her probation began on the date of her appointment. The county contends that because the relevant civil service rule and the county code define probationary period as the “period of continuous service following appointment,” the period could not have begun until she returned from vacation and actually began a “period of continuous service,” i.e., began to work. Applying all the venerable principles of statutory construction urged by appellant, we nonetheless agree with the county, the hearing officer, and the trial court that the probationary period did not start until the employee reported for her first day of work. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the petition for a writ of mandamus. I THE LAW Because the facts are undisputed and the only question on appeal is a question of law, we begin with the pertinent county ordinances and civil service rules. We present the relevant law, cognizant of the principles of statutory construction requiring us to turn first to the plain meaning of the words themselves and to interpret their meaning in the context of the entire statutory or regulatory framework of which they are a part. (Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 715; Department of Health Services v. Civil Service Com. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 487, 494-496.) As appellant politely reminds us, we are not at liberty to rewrite the ordinances or rules by adding words, terms, or conditions. (City of Sacramento v. Public Employees’ Retirement System (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 786, 793-794.) We conduct a de novo review of the legal issue before us. (Dobbins v. San Diego County Civil Service Com. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 125, 128-129.) No one disputes that a Sacramento County employee is subject to a minimum six- month probationary period and during that period can be terminated without cause. The purpose of the probation is described in County of Sacramento Civil Service Commission