Opinion ID: 2520945
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: City Charter Remedies

Text: The City Charter directs employees who believe they have been wrongfully suspended, laid off, or discharged to follow certain procedures. Former section 112 1/2 of article IX, [2] the provision at issue here, stated: Whenever it is claimed by any person that he has been unlawfully suspended, laid off or discharged, and that such lay-off, suspension or discharge is ineffective for any reason, any claim for compensation must be made and a demand for reinstatement must be presented in writing within ninety days following the date on which it is claimed that such person was first illegally, wrongfully or invalidly laid off, suspended or discharged. Such demand for reinstatement must be filed with the Board of Civil Service Commissioners and such claim for compensation for such allegedly wrongful, illegal or erroneous discharge must be filed with the City Clerk. Failure to file such demand for reinstatement within the time herein specified shall be a bar to any action to compel such reinstatement and proof of filing such a demand for reinstatement must be completed and proved a condition precedent to the maintenance of any action for reinstatement. Proof of filing the claim for compensation within the time and in the manner herein specified shall be a condition precedent to any recovery of wages or salary claimed to be due on account of said lay-off, suspension or discharge. The demand requirement has been described as somewhat analogous to the requirement of a petition for a rehearing addressed to the board. ( Steen v. Board of Civil Service Commrs. (1945) 26 Cal.2d 716, 722, 160 P.2d 816.) Filing the demand does not compel the board of Civil Service Commissioners to take any action. ( Id. at p. 721, 160 P.2d 816.) Rather, it affords the board an additional opportunity to consider the matter before the complainant resorts to litigation. ( Ibid. ) It also serves to fix[ ] a time limit and formalities necessary as a basis for court action. ( Id. at p. 722, 160 P.2d 816.) Under administrative mandamus procedure, the superior court may review a city board of civil service commissioners's decision upholding a layoff, discharge, or suspension. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5.) However, assuming no vested right is involved, the court does not review the decision de novo, but under a substantial evidence standard. (See State Personnel Bd., supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 433, 217 Cal.Rptr. 16, 703 P.2d 354.) This standard of review reflects the respect this court has traditionally afforded public employers' internal reviewing board decisions. (See Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 465, 131 Cal.Rptr. 90, 551 P.2d 410 ( Westlake ).) However, we have never confronted the issue here presented, and find troubling the possibility that exhausting City Charter procedures might deprive a victim of discrimination of a civil right created by the Legislature.