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

C.A. Reinstates Union Suit Challenging LAPD Disciplinary Practice

January 18, 2017 by Hien Nguyen

From: Metropolitan News-Enterprise
By Kenneth Ofgang 10/21/13

The Court of Appeal for this district Friday reinstated a union lawsuit challenging Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck’s alleged policy of issuing “involuntary conditional Official Reprimand(s)” to officers accused of disciplinary violations.

Div. Three reversed the lower court’s dismissal of a suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the policy. The Los Angeles Police Protective League alleges that the conditional reprimands, or CORs, violate officers’ rights by imposing “a predetermined minimum disciplinary penalty which will be imposed in the event of a future commission of the same or similar misconduct by the officer.”

Such predetermined discipline violates officers’ state and federal constitutional rights to a fair and impartial hearing, as well as rights guaranteed by state statute and the city’s charter, the union alleged.

Unpublished Opinion

Justice Walter Croskey, in an unpublished opinion for the panel, said Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stem erred in granting the city judgment on the pleadings.

Stem ruled that the complaint was vague as to the legal bases for the claim, that the issue was not ripe because there was no allegation that any officer had actually suffered a violation of due process as a result of an alleged minimum penalty, and that “an autonomous \administrative body has the right to make its own rules.”

Croskey, however, said the complaint adequately pled the existence of an actual controversy between the city and the union regarding the rights of officers represented by the LAPPL.

An actual injury need not occur for declaratory relief to be available, Croskey explained, because one of the purposes of such relief is to resolve the looming issues before the injury occurs. A declaratory action is particularly appropriate, he added, \\hen the issues involve general policies, rather than fact-specific individual claims.

‘Reasonable Inference’

“Furthermore,” the justice wrote, “a reasonable inference can be drawn from the complaint that minimum penalties will be imposed on officers V\ho repeat misconduct based on the authority of respondents – the Chief of Police and the City – over the Board of Rights, and the complaint’s allegation that the minimum penalties are “establish[ ed],” not suggested or recommended.”

The justice also rejected the city’s contention that there was no actual controversy because the final decision on discipline in an individual case will be made by the Board of Rights-made up of two high-ranking LAPD officers and one civilian-which would not be bound by any conditional reprimand. The argument “defies common sense,” Croskey wrote.

“Respondents’ claim that the Board of Rights – which, according to the complaint, consists primarily of officers subordinate to the Chief of Police and employed by the City- could and would simply ignore these orders based on the Board of Rights’ own contrary interpretation of the Charter’s and [Board of Rights] Manual’s provisions is unlikely,” the jurist said.

Croskey also rejected the “circular logic” of the city’s argument that injunctive relief would be inappropriate because the union did not exhaust administrative remedies.

‘The complaint alleges that the League’s members are being denied the procedural safeguards provided for by the Charter and Manual with respect to a Board of Rights hearing,” he reasoned. ‘Therefore, respondents’ argument that the League’s members must rely on the Board of Rights’ process to address their grievance here ignores the complaint’s allegations.”

Attorneys on appeal were Richard A Levine of Silver, Hadden, Silver, Wexler & Levine for the union and Deputy City Attorney Paul L. Winnemore for the city and its chief of police. The case is Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, B247156.

Filed Under: News Prior to RLS Tagged With: Richard

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.