Opinion ID: 1353141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interpretation of section 19572, subdivision (t).

Text: (2) Appellant contends that a failure of good behavior must be known to some portion of the public before it may be said to have caused discredit to his agency or his employment, within the meaning of subdivision (t). She asserts that the record fails to show that her behavior was publicly known, causing actual discredit to her agency. Her interpretation of subdivision (t), however, has been firmly rejected in Orlandi v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 263 Cal. App.2d 32. Orlandi involved a highway patrolman who fixed a speeding ticket issued to a business associate by wilfully taking the court copy of the ticket from the clerk's office, later destroying it and thereby obstructing an investigation then being conducted by his superiors. The notice of punitive action served upon the officer charged him with dishonesty, wilful disobedience, conflict of interest, and failure of good behavior under subdivision (t). The personnel board rejected the first three charges, but affirmed the officer's dismissal for violation of subdivision (t). The trial court denied mandate, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. In reaching its decision, the court rejected the officer's contention that subdivision (t) requires the misbehavior to be publicly known, resulting in actual discredit to the agency. The court found nothing in the legislative history to support this contention. It held that the language of subdivision (t) is clear on its face and requires no construction. (263 Cal. App.2d at p. 36.) The court rejected the officer's contention that the word causes should be literally interpreted, stating `The literal meaning of the words of a statute may be disregarded to avoid absurd results or to give effect to manifest purposes that, in the light of the statute's legislative history, appear from its provisions considered as a whole.' ( Silver v. Brown (1966) 63 Cal.2d 841, 845....) The court found that the statute was addressed to the conduct of state employees, not to the publicity such conduct might attract. It would be logically absurd, the court noted, to permit misconduct so long as it was kept within the family, or to require that an agency publicize the misdeeds of an employee in order to be able to discipline him. The court added that 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, but, given this qualification, it held that Subdivision (t) refers to conduct which would reflect discredit on the employing agency or the position held by the person engaging in such conduct, regardless of whether publicized or not. (263 Cal. App.2d at p. 37.) Appellant urges us to reject the Orlandi rationale, as it would permit a governmental agency to dismiss or suspend employees for a wide range of relatively innocent conduct which might, if known to the public, cause discredit to the agency. If there is any validity to the concern that the personnel board may be inclined to pursue, or will be unable to weed out di minimus infractions, it is not apparent in this case. As the hearing officer stated, To have a Referee working from inside the agency on behalf of either party to a pending action is obviously improper and can reasonably be expected to raise doubts among litigants as to the impartial exercise of discretion by the agency. [1]