Lee v. Civil Service Commission

Opinion

ROTH, P. J. Appellant Delphi Lee, Jr. (Lee) was a civil service worker, employed by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social [11]Services (DPSS) as an administrative assistant. On January 20, 1975, Lee filed a declaration of candidacy to become a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the office of state senator in a special primary election to be held March 4 the same year. Prior to the filing of Lee’s declaration his DPSS supervisor had advised him in writing that under the circumstances of his employment it might be illegal for him to run for office by virtue of those provisions of the United States Code popularly denominated the Hatch Act. (5 U.S.C. § 1501 et seq.) Lee, accordingly, was also requested to obtain an official opinion from the general counsel to the United States Civil Service Commission that such was not the case. The ultimate reason for the request was based upon the fact that, under the terms of the Hatch Act, a state or local agency, here the DPSS, may be faced with a withdrawal of federal funds otherwise flowing to it unless it discharges its employee determined to be in violation of that legislation.1

On January 23, 1975, Lee complied with this request and on February 5 following was advised his candidacy was in violation of the act. Nevertheless he continued in his race for office, participating unsuccessfully in the March primary, and was discharged from his DPSS employment February 7, 1977, following appropriate federal proceedings against him. (See fn. 1.)

The discharge decision was appealed to respondent Los Angeles Civil Service Commission (the County Commission) which, following a hearing on July 6, 1977, entered its final order sustaining his termination. Lee, on May 1, 1980, then filed his petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, alleging that the County [12]Commission abused its discretion in so deciding.2 That petition was denied by the trial court. This appeal followed.

The sole issue for our consideration, as formulated by Lee, is whether the County Commission’s determination upholding the discharge “comports with the California Supreme Court’s decision in Bagley v. Washington Township Hospital Dist. (1966) 65 Cal.2d 499 [55 Cal.Rptr. 401, 421 P.2d 409].”3 We are of the view that it did and, accordingly, affirm the judgment appealed from.