Opinion ID: 1353141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The constitutionality of section 19572, subdivision (t).

Text: Section 19572 provides in pertinent part that [e]ach of the following constitutes cause for discipline of an employee, or person whose name appears on any employment list: ... (t) Other failure of good behavior either during or outside of duty hours which is of such a nature that it causes discredit to his agency or his employment. Appellant contends that the language of subdivision (t) is unconstitutionally vague, relying upon the decisions of this court in Shepherd v. State Personnel Board, 48 Cal.2d 41 [307 P.2d 4], and Morrison v. State Board of Education, 1 Cal.3d 214 [82 Cal. Rptr. 175, 461 P.2d 375]. Neither case, however, supports her position. In Shepherd, we were interpreting the predecessor to subdivision (t), then contained in subdivision (s), which provided that an employee could be disciplined for [a]ny other failure of good behavior or acts either during or outside of duty hours which are incompatible with or inimical to the public service. We determined that subdivision (s) had to be construed in the light of a 1949 amendment to Government Code section 19251, which was aimed at providing for the designation of incompatible activities in a specified manner, namely, that each appointing power should prescribe the prohibited activities, subject to approval of the State Personnel Board. (48 Cal.2d at p. 49.) In Shepherd, we held that the purposes of section 19251 would be defeated if, in the absence of compliance with that section by the appointing power, an employee could be punished under subdivision (s) of section 19572 for acts incompatible with or inimical to the public service. (48 Cal.2d at p. 49.) Consequently, the employee in Shepherd could not be dismissed for receiving payments from present or prospective meat plant owners, whose plants he was required to inspect, for drawing construction and remodeling plans which he prepared outside of duty hours, after adoption of the amendment in 1949. Appellant's reliance on Shepherd to show the unconstitutionality of subdivision (t) is entirely misplaced, for Shepherd did no more than construe one statute in light of another. Appellant contends that the application of subdivision (t) to her violates section 19251, in that the division failed to specify in advance that her conduct would constitute a failure of good behavior. This contention must also fail. As the Court of Appeal held in Orlandi v. State Personnel Bd., 263 Cal. App.2d 32, 40 [69 Cal. Rptr. 177], it is apparent from a study of section 19251 that it applies only to activities which involve employment or work incompatible with state service and the acceptance of moneys therefor. Nothing in the record indicates, nor does appellant contend, that she engaged in such activities. Appellant's argument under Morrison stems from a statement therein that Civil as well as criminal statutes must be sufficiently clear as to give a fair warning of the conduct prohibited, and they must provide a standard or guide against which conduct can be uniformly judged by courts and administrative agencies. (1 Cal.3d at p. 231.) As we recognized in Morrison, however, vagueness can be cured by a more precise judicial construction and application of the statute in conformity with the legislative objectives. In Morrison itself, we upheld the prohibition against immoral and unprofessional conduct involving moral turpitude (Ed. Code, § 13202) by limiting that phrase to such conduct as indicates an unfitness to teach. Moreover, the same constitutional attack on subdivision (t) was presented and rejected in Gee v. California State Personnel Bd., 5 Cal. App.3d 713, 720-721 [85 Cal. Rptr. 762] (hg. den.). There, the court cited Orlandi for the proposition that subdivision (t) has been judicially limited in conformance with Morrison : The first 19 subdivisions of section 19572, (a) through (s), list specific kinds of conduct which, if committed, constitute causes for discipline. It is obvious that they do not exhaust the kind of conduct which can be detrimental to state service. Subdivision (t) relates to `other failure of good behavior' and is a catchall to include situations and acts which do not easily fit into the 19 specific causes. The failure of good behavior must be of such a nature that it reflects upon the employee's job and cannot be just any behavior which the agency might consider improper.  (263 Cal. App.2d at p. 37; italics added.) The court in Gee cites several cases in which statutes similar to section 19572, subdivision (t), have been upheld against constitutional attacks. In Vadnais v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 3 Cal. App.2d 562 [40 P.2d 559], the court found that language in the Civil Service Act of 1929, section 14 (now repealed), referring to a `failure of good behavior or any other act or acts which are incompatible with or inimical to the public service' constitutionally sound. In Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal.2d 546, 553 [261 P.2d 261], the court held that The fact that the term `unprofessional conduct' [Ed. Code, § 13521, prior to amendment in 1954] is not defined by statute authorizing the dismissal of a teacher [citation] does not render it void for uncertainty. (See also, Rudolph v. Athletic Commission, 177 Cal. App.2d 1, 19 [1 Cal. Rptr. 898]; Hingsbergen v. State Personnel Bd., 240 Cal. App.2d 914, 924-926 [50 Cal. Rptr. 59].) (1) In the case at bar, it is difficult to believe that appellant, however innocently motivated, could not appreciate in advance that her proposed conduct would constitute a failure of good behavior likely to bring discredit to her employer. Consequently, we conclude that subdivision (t) is neither vague nor uncertain on its face or in application to the instant case.