Martin v. State Personnel Board

California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 1975 No. Civ. No. 44493Published

Before: Loring

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the State Personnel Board's rule 64 is valid and that the trial court erred in substituting its own judgment for the Board's, as there was no evidence that the Board abused its discretion in denying an extension of time for the petitioner's late filing.

Issues

Whether State Personnel Board rule 64 is valid under Government Code section 18701.
Whether the trial court erred in finding that the Board abused its discretion by refusing to excuse the petitioner's late filing.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Rule 64 vests that discretion in Board, not in the trial court. In our view, Board’s determination cannot be set aside or disregarded except upon a showing of abuse of discretion. No such showing was made here.”

“The trial court was required to determine whether or not Board’s determination constituted an abuse of its discretion in determining that “no reason” was shown by Martin for her failure to comply with rule 64.”

[560]Opinion

LORING, J.* Sheryl A. Martin (Martin) filed a petition for writ of mandate against State Personnel Board of the State of California1 (Board) seeking a peremptory writ of mandate directing Board to set aside its decision in case No. 5691 and to adopt the decision of its hearing officer allowing Martin to recover wages as an employment and claims assistant for the Department of Human Resources (HUD) for the period May 12, 1970 through September 15, 1970. Board filed a return to the petition alleging inter alia that the Board had dismissed the appeal of Martin in case No. 5691 because the appeal had been filed in violation of its rule 64 (which specified the time within which appeals could be filed). After hearing, the court made findings “that Petitioner acted as a result of inadvertence in failing to file within the 30 days” concluded as a matter of law that Board suffered no prejudice that as a consequence the appeal was timely filed and that Board should vacate the dismissal of appeal in case No. 5691 and hear said appeal. Judgment was entered granting peremptory writ of mandate in accordance with the findings and conclusions of law. Board appeals from the judgment.

Contentions

Appellant contends:

I. That the trial court erred in holding that Martin was excused from complying with Board’s rule 64.

Facts

Martin had been employed by HUD in its South Central Service Center in Los Angeles as an intermittent employment and claims assistant commencing about September 28, 1967. She was denied employment commencing May 12, 1970, until September 15, 1970. On November 17, 1971, in case No. 5418, Board adopted the proposed decision of its hearing officer that Martin was improperly denied employment by HUD during the period May 12, 1970, through September 15, 1970, but refused to impose any penalty on Edward E. Poindexter, her supervisor, who was responsible for depriving Martin of employ[561]ment. On January 7, 1972, (51 days after the decision on Nov. 17, 1971, in case No. 5418), Martin filed a claim (case No. 5691) for wages for the period for which she had been improperly denied employment as adjudicated in the decision in case No. 5418. Board dismissed the claim, holding that it was filed in violation of its rule 64. Rule 64 reads:

Martin v. State Personnel Board

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief