Smith v. Cal. State Personnel Board CA4/2 (2022) · DecisionDepot
Smith v. Cal. State Personnel Board CA4/2
California Court of Appeal Jan 24, 2022 No. E074300Unpublished
Filed 1/24/22 Smith v. Cal. State Personnel Board CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
T. FITZGERALD SMITH, E074300 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CIVDS1908082) v. OPINION CALIFORNIA STATE PERSONNEL BOARD,
Defendant and Respondent;
CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,
Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. David Cohn, Judge
Affirmed.
Brunick, McElhaney & Kennedy and Leland P. McElhaney, for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
1
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Assistant Attorney General,
Fiel D. Tigno and Hima Raviprakash, Deputy Attorneys General, for Real Party In
Interest and Respondent.
No appearance by Defendant and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant T. Fitzgerald Smith was an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the
California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board). While presiding over a
hearing involving alleged workplace sexual harassment, Smith made comments that he
SPB’s finding that Smith was likely to repeat his offending behavior, which in turn
supports its decision to uphold Smith’s dismissal. (Skelly, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 218.)
In any event, the “essential test” in deciding the appropriate employee penalty “is
whether the conduct harms the public service.” (Deegan v. City of Mountain View (1999)
72 Cal.App.4th 37, 50.) So when assessing whether the SPB abused its discretion in
imposing a certain penalty, “the overriding consideration . . . is the extent to which the
10
employee’s conduct resulted in, or if repeated is likely to result in, ‘[harm] to the public
service.’ [Citations.]” (Skelly, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 218.)
The SPB has “broad discretion in determining . . . whether dismissal or suspension
is the appropriate sanction.” (California Teachers Assn. v. State of California (1999) 20
Cal.4th 327, 343.) This is because “‘a disciplinary discharge often involves complex
facts and may require a sensitive evaluation of the nature and seriousness of the
misconduct and whether it warrants the grave sanction of dismissal.’ [Citation.]” (Id. at
pp. 343-344.)
Although others may disagree with the SPB’s decision that Smith’s dismissal was
appropriate—as ALJ Block did—the SPB abuses its discretion in fashioning a
disciplinary penalty only when its decision “exceeds the bound[s] of reason.” (Ng v.
State Personnel Bd. (1977) 68 Cal.App.3d 600, 605.) Its decision did not do so.
As an ALJ, Smith was held to a “higher standard” than other state employees.
(Ackerman, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 400.) He recognizes that he did not live up to
that standard by exercising “poor judgment” during the Sandoval hearing. He also
acknowledges that he violated several canons of the Code of Judicial Ethics by behaving
in an undignified manner and making comments during the Sandoval hearing that
objectified Lopez and could reasonably be understood as reflecting gender bias. Smith
admits that his “deliberate and affirmative misconduct . . . violated his obligations as a
judge and impaired the integrity of the proceedings before him.” He also admits that his
11
comments “harmed the public service by discrediting [the Board] and himself” as an
ALJ.
Given Smith’s concessions and the “higher standard” applied to ALJs, “[w]e
cannot say that, as a matter of law, [the SPB] erred” in finding that his dismissal was
appropriate. (Ackerman, supra, 145 Cal.App.3d at p. 400; see also Skelly, supra, 15
Cal.3d at p. 218 [“overriding consideration” in deciding employee discipline is whether
employee’s conduct harmed the public service].) This is not an “exceptional case” where
“reasonable minds cannot differ on the appropriate penalty.” (County of Los Angeles v.
Civil Service Com. of County of Los Angeles (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 871, 877.) Because
the SPB’s decision to uphold Smith’s dismissal was within its discretion, we affirm the
judgment.
IV.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The SPB may recover its costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J. We concur:
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
12
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the State Personnel Board did not abuse its discretion in upholding the termination of an Administrative Law Judge who made inappropriate, gender-biased comments during a hearing, as judicial officers are held to a higher standard of conduct.
Issues
Whether the State Personnel Board abused its discretion by imposing the penalty of dismissal rather than progressive discipline for a first-time offender.
Whether substantial evidence supports the finding that the appellant was likely to repeat his misconduct.
Whether the appellant's conduct harmed the public service to a degree justifying termination.
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“judicial officers, including ALJs, are held to a “higher standard” than other state employees.”
“The question whether progressive discipline was appropriate in [Smith’s] case was a matter within the [SPB’s] discretion.”
“the “essential test” in deciding the appropriate employee penalty “is whether the conduct harms the public service.””