Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Attorneys’ Fees Awarded in a Precedent-Setting Disciplinary Decision

January 1, 2015 by Hien Nguyen

By Sarah Burdick

RLS attorneys Sarah Burdick and Jonathan Murphy handing Dee Dee Lundquist a check for attorneys’ fees awarded against the City of Oakland in the Mausz arbitration.
RLS attorneys Sarah Burdick and Jonathan Murphy handing Dee Dee Lundquist a check for attorneys’ fees awarded against the City of Oakland in arbitration.

A neutral Arbitrator has recently made an unprecedented award in an Oakland POA discipline case.  The Arbitrator awarded full back-pay for a served five-day suspension, plus interest, attorneys’ fees, and fully overturned all sustained allegations in an appeal action against the City of Oakland.  The award of attorneys’ fees (which are not called for in the MOU) were essentially made as a sanction for the City’s conduct. As the Arbitrator explained:

“This case is extraordinary. The City committed an egregious violation of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. The City failed to meet its burden to prove just cause, not just in one element, but in all four elements: notice, proof of wrongdoing, fairness of investigation and reasonable penalty. In addition, the City failed to prove that it treated the Grievant fairly during the administrative IA investigation and subsequent review process, or that it seriously and fairly provided the Grievant the due process that is required by Skelly v. State Personnel Board, 15 Cal. 3d 194 (1975) and the MOU’s grievance procedure.”

The Arbitrator also found that the Department’s discipline was “arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith” and, moreover, that:

“The grievance could easily have been avoided if the City had seriously followed its contractual obligations. As a result of its arbitrariness and bad faith in pursuing the grievance for an improper purpose, however, and for refusing to pay serious attention to the Skelly officer’s findings and recommendations, the Grievant had to incur attorney’s fees in litigating the matter over more than a year, through arbitration, when the matter should have been promptly resolved.”

With these findings and awards, the Arbitrator sent a clear and compelling message to the City of Oakland and the Oakland Police Department that an employer cannot short-circuit the due process rights of law enforcement officers.

Case Facts

The Occupy Oakland protests were a chaotic time for the City of Oakland and for the officers of the Oakland Police Department. Rank and file officers and supervisors were caught between a department administration unprepared for the large-scale violent protests and looting, a City government sending mixed messages to the protesters, police and the public, and poor staffing levels and equipment that often left officers on the front line of protest skirmish lines open and vulnerable to attack. This case revolves around one of the earlier Occupy events where the Department response was tested with a large protest centered in Frank Ogawa Plaza in front of Oakland City Hall on October 30, 2011.

The Oakland Police Department had been tasked by the City with moving the protesters and their tent city out of the public plaza in front of City Hall and on October 30th police skirmish lines were set up early in the morning in an attempt to peacefully move the protesters and their belongings out of the square.  Unfortunately, the attempts to peacefully move the protesters out of the plaza quickly failed as a large group of the protesters made it clear they were not leaving without a fight.

Multiple protesters attacked police as the officers attempted to move through and clear the square, forcing officers to respond with various crowd control tactics involving various levels of force. The Department administration, unprepared for the violent response from the protestors and a City under attack, scrambled to put together an operations plan to try to help the officers and contain and arrest the most violent of the protestors. Amidst this chaos and rapidly devolving incident, my client, then a Sergeant with the Oakland Police Department, was assigned the task of attempting to document the many clashes between protestors and police and the resultant uses of force.

The Department had no policies governing how to prepare a use of force report in such circumstances and had never trained Department personnel on how to prepare such a report. My client responded to a holding area in downtown Oakland where he was confronted with a mass of protesters, making accusations of all kinds against their arresting officers, with little time to interview each before they were transported to jail. My client interviewed each as thoroughly as he could that night and then spent several months collecting reports and evidentiary tapes from all officers involved to complete the use of force report. He submitted the report through normal procedures, which included review and approval by his chain of command. The reports were approved by his superior officers and my client never heard any additional concerns about the report until Internal Affairs noticed him several months later. The notice included allegations of an intentional failure to take complaints of improper force from the protesters he interviewed that night and a failure to adequately prepare the use of force report.

In a long Internal Affairs interview, my client attempted to explain that no protesters had ever made any complaints about improper use of force or had expressed any desire to file a complaint against the Department, the City, or any of the officers there that night. He also attempted to explain the chaos of the night and his diligence in attempting to prepare a report that was the first of its kind for the Department. The Internal Affairs investigator was only able to find one of the protesters from that night and interview him briefly. The protester confirmed the Sergeant’s assertion that he had no desire to file a complaint against the Department. Unfortunately, instead of realizing that the Department could not prove the failure to take a complaint allegation and realizing that that the failure to complete a “proper” use of force report was a training issue, Internal Affairs the two allegations against the Sergeant and recommended a five-day suspension although he had no prior disciplinary history.

Appeal of the Case

Rains Lucia Stern lawyers immediately appealed the case and requested a Skelly conference with one of the Department’s Captains. We held the client’s Skelly conference almost one year after the incident date and argued the obvious. We reiterated that the Sergeant never refused to accept a complaint from any protester, that no complaints were made that night, and that the Sergeant did the best he could to complete a use of force report for an unprecedented incident which he was neither trained for nor given policy or guidelines on.  Shockingly, the Skelly officer largely agreed with our position and recommended overturning the allegation related to failing to take a complaint and reducing the discipline for the failure to complete a correct use of force report from a five-day suspension to a written reprimand. Without further explanation, the Chief of Police ignored this recommendation, upholding both allegations and the five-day suspension.  We decided to take the case to arbitration in the hopes that a third-party neutral arbitrator could see reason and right the wrongs.

We presented the same evidence at arbitration that we had at the Skelly conference with one key difference: the Chief of Police had changed his mind about the allegations and discipline and testified that he did not think either the allegations or the discipline was warranted or justified. The City presented no evidence. Thankfully, not only did the Arbitrator see reason and side with  the client’s position in her written decision, she also punished the City for wasting everyone’s time and money pushing the case to an arbitration where they failed to present any evidence by awarding interest on the five days of back pay and an unprecedented award of attorneys’ fees. This case is a clear message to police chiefs and sheriffs that their disciplinary cases should be based on sound findings and evidence or they may well face monetary damages.

Disclaimer: Case law and analysis can change over time. The information in this article is accurate as of the date the article was written and should not constitute legal advice. Always consult with an attorney.

Filed Under: Bulletins Tagged With: jonathan-murphy, sarah-burdick

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.