Turner v. Bd. of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles CA2/8

Filed 6/30/15 Turner v. Bd. of Civil Service Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

LAWRENCE TURNER, B256973

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS143304) v.

BOARD OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Defendant and Respondent;

CITY OF LOS ANGELES,

Real Party in Interest.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. James Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.

Lawrence Turner, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Vivienne A. Swanigan, Assistant City Attorney, and Janis Levart Barquist, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.

**********

Plaintiff Lawrence Turner, a former Traffic Officer with the Department of Transportation of the City of Los Angeles (Department), was discharged on May 17, 2012, for sexually harassing two supervisors. He appealed his termination to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners (Board), and the Board upheld the Department’s termination decision. Plaintiff sought a peremptory writ of mandate in the superior court for reinstatement and backpay. The trial court denied plaintiff’s writ petition, and plaintiff has appealed. On appeal, plaintiff contends his due process rights were violated because he was “never allowed to appear at his Skelly1 hearing” and the Department did not comply with its policy requiring service of a “ ‘completed and unsigned copy of the Notice of Suspension, probationary Termination of Discharge’ ” as part of plaintiff’s Skelly package. He also contends that there was insufficient evidence of sexual harassment, and that the discipline imposed was excessive.2 We affirm, finding that plaintiff failed to supply any citations to the administrative record, failed to fairly summarize the evidence, and failed to support his contentions on appeal with reasoned analysis and citation to supportive authority. And, in any event, our limited review of the record demonstrates no error. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As we shall discuss below, plaintiff has failed to support his appeal with citations to the administrative record. Accordingly, the following factual summary has been gleaned from a limited review of the record before us and the parties’ representations in their appellate briefs: Plaintiff worked for the city for over 32 years, and as a Traffic