Court Opinion

ID: 9602476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:55:42.459599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:03.972698
License: Public Domain

Gunderson, J.,
dissenting:
The building inspector in question apparently is an experienced, generally capable man. In this instance, he overlooked *759violations he arguably should have observed; however, I cannot endorse my brethren’s statement that “danger to the public from structural collapse and fire hazards are sufficient extraordinary and exigent circumstances to warrant immediate termination” without allowing the inspector a pre-termination hearing. Our attention has been directed to nothing which justifies the conclusion such danger characteristically results from the inspector’s work.
For related reasons, it does not appear to me that termination was justified in any event. The inspector’s honesty does not appear to be questioned. His culpability is grounded solely in that, in this instance, he arguably should have perceived and reported the violations in question. There is no question but that the City’s deficient procedures, apparently corrected now as a result of this case, were in fact the root cause of the entire problem.1

As appellant’s counsel correctly points out in his Opening Brief:
“The question was whether Petitioner was justified in relying upon a premit [sic] supplied him on November 8, 1976, by Dave Berry. Petitioner had called Mr. Hymer [Assistant Supervisor, Division of Building and Safety], on that date and confirmed that there was such a permit for Interior Remodel. Petitioner called Mr. Hymer, which is the accepted procedure. (See the very operation Rules # 10 relied upon by the City as well as the testimony of Mr. Bailey and the 4 other inspectors.)
“That it was the very procedures which were defective rather than the Petitioner is admitted in a memo from Mr. Hymer to office personnel dated February 10, 1977. (Appendix Exhibit 7). Although Mr. Hymer denied that Petitioner’s circumstance brought about the Memo, Mr. Bailey and everyone else knew that it did. The memorandum stated:
“ ‘In the past we have not had the full amount of information we need on the commercial permit forms, and plans. This leaves the field inspector more or less in the dark as to the amount of work the permit covers and which plans he is to follow.
Effective February 14, 1977, no commercial permits are to be issued which simply states (Interior REmodel).’ [sic]
“The new order became effective the day Petitioner was terminated. It is apparent that Petitioner was ‘in the dark’ relying upon accepted procedures which were inadequate. He had a permit which stated only ‘Interior Remodel’ (Appendix Exhibit 6). Petitioner cannot be punished for relying upon inadequate permit procedures. The responsibility for any illegal construction falls squarely upon those who adopted and for years operated under defective rules, which could only result in difficulties. But, the inspector ‘in the dark’ is not the one who should pay with his livelihood.”