Court Opinion

ID: 9881432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-02 17:03:20.984685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:08:37.411434
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/29/23 Ramirez v. California State Personnel Board CA1/4
        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not
certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not
been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                            FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION FOUR

 MICHAEL RAMIREZ,
           Plaintiff and Appellant,
 v.
 CALIFORNIA STATE                                                  A165897
 PERSONNEL BOARD,
                                                                   (San Francisco City &
           Defendant and Respondent,
                                                                   County Super. Ct. No.
                                                                   CPF-19-516933)
 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
 OF FORESTRY AND FIRE
 PROTECTION,
           Real Party in Interest.

          Plaintiff Michael Ramirez appeals from the denial of his
petition for a writ of administrative mandamus under Code of
Civil Procedure section 1094.5 seeking to set aside his
termination from the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (Cal Fire). Ramirez contends that respondent
California State Personnel Board (Board) abused its discretion by
approving his dismissal. We affirm.
                                        BACKGROUND
          Ramirez commenced his employment with Cal Fire in 1994.
In 2010, Ramirez was appointed to the position of Battalion Chief

                                                      1
at Cal Fire’s training academy in Ione, California (the Academy).
In July 2012, Ramirez became the Assistant Chief at the
Academy. One of the programs that Ramirez oversaw in both
positions was Cal Fire’s Fire Fighting Academy (FFA).
      Cal Fire dismissed Ramirez from his position as Assistant
Chief effective January 23, 2015. In its notice of adverse action,
Cal Fire alleged that Ramirez violated Government Code1 section
19572, subdivisions (c) through (f), (m), (o), (p), (r), and (t)2 by:
(1) consuming alcohol and allowing FFA cadets to consume
alcohol while on duty at a graduation dinner; (2) failing to
properly respond to violations of Cal Fire’s Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) policy, including an incident where supervisor
Moe Fleming slapped Cadet Samano on the buttocks while she
was stretching during physical training, an incident where
Fleming made inappropriate sexual statements to another female
employee, and incidents were Cal Fire male employees displayed

      1 All further statutory references are to the Government

Code unless otherwise stated.
      2 This statute provides, in relevant part:       “Each of the
following constitutes cause for discipline of an employee, or of a
person whose name appears on any employment list:
[¶] . . . [¶] (c) Inefficiency. [¶] (d) Inexcusable neglect of duty. [¶]
(e) Insubordination. [¶] (f) Dishonesty. [¶] . . . [¶]
(m) Discourteous treatment of the public or other employees.
[¶] . . . [¶] (o) Willful disobedience. [¶] (p) Misuse of state
property. [¶] . . . [¶] (r) Violation of the prohibitions set forth in
accordance with Section 19990 [incompatible
activities]. [¶] . . . [¶] (t) Other failure of good behavior either
during or outside of duty hours, which is of such a nature that it
causes discredit to the appointing authority or the person’s
employment.” (§ 19572, subds. (c)–(f), (m), (o), (p), (r), & (t).)

                                    2
inappropriate images of women; (3) failing to recognize and
respond appropriately to the incident with Cadet Samano as a
workplace violence incident; (4) misusing state time and
property, including by driving a state vehicle for personal use
while assigned to the Eiler Fire in 2014; (5) disobeying orders in
December 2014 from Staff Chief Tyler related to Ramirez’s
placement on administrative time off (ATO); and (6) being
dishonest during an administrative interview by the California
Highway Patrol (CHP) regarding Ramirez’s employment
misconduct in September 2014, and to Chief Tyler in December
2014. Ramirez appealed his dismissal to the Board.
The First Board Decision
      After a lengthy administrative hearing, the Board adopted
the proposed decision of the administrative law judge (ALJ). The
Board determined that Cal Fire failed to prove that Ramirez
consumed alcohol while on duty or that he misused state time.3
However, the Board concluded that Cal Fire proved all remaining
allegations and approved dismissal as the just and proper
penalty.
      Ramirez filed a petition for a writ of administrative
mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5). The trial court granted
the writ in part and remanded the matter to the Board. The trial
court determined that the allegations related to the incident
where Fleming made inappropriate sexual comments to a female
employee fell outside of the applicable statute of limitations, as

      3 The Board dismissed the charges of inefficiency and

discourteous treatment.

                                 3
did any claims that Ramirez made false statements to CHP
regarding this incident. The court also found that the ALJ had
inappropriately limited Ramirez’s cross-examination of Cadet
Samano.
The Second Board Decision
      On remand, the Board set aside its prior decision and held
a hearing allowing further cross-examination of Cadet Samano.
After the hearing, the Board adopted the ALJ’s revised decision.
The Board found that Ramirez had not testified credibly and
sustained many of the allegations against Ramirez.
      The Board found that Ramirez committed inexcusable
neglect of duty (§ 19572, subd. (d)) on numerous occasions as
follows: Ramirez allowed cadets to drink alcohol while on duty at
an April 2012 graduation dinner, intentionally violating Cal
Fire’s policy prohibiting the consumption of alcohol while on duty.
      Ramirez failed to adhere to Cal Fire’s policies preventing
discrimination and sexual harassment. Supervisors are
responsible for preventing discrimination and harassment,
setting the tone for a workplace free of discrimination and
harassment, and taking appropriate measures whenever they
should reasonably know that discrimination or harassment may
be occurring. Further, any Cal Fire employee who witnesses an
incident of discrimination or harassment is responsible for
reporting the conduct to an appropriate supervisor. Ramirez was
grossly negligent in witnessing and failing to report to any
supervisor Fleming’s slap of Cadet Samano’s buttocks in April
2012, and in failing to prevent male employees from displaying

                                 4
inappropriate images of women on Academy grounds. The Board
found that sharing such images was a common practice under
Ramirez’s supervision, and his attitude regarding Cal Fire’s
sexual harassment policy was so lax that one subordinate
employee felt free to text a link to a swingers’ club website to
Ramirez’s department-issued cell phone.
      Ramirez acted with gross negligence in failing to take
action to address the 2012 incident between Fleming and Cadet
Samano as a potential matter of workplace violence. Cal Fire
had a zero-tolerance policy for workplace violence, Fleming
struck Cadet Samano with force, and his slap was unwelcome
physical contact.
      Ramirez also committed inexcusable neglect of duty
through his intentional use of a state vehicle for personal
business without permission in violation of Cal Fire policy. In
2014, Ramirez was assigned to the Eiler Fire and worked 24-hour
“on” shifts followed by 24-hour “off” shifts or rest periods.
Without requesting permission to travel to West Sacramento,
Ramirez drove there on a 24-hour rest shift to attend a concert
with his wife, a 300-mile roundtrip. The same conduct violated
section 19572, subdivision (p) (misuse of state property).
      Next, Ramirez committed insubordination and willful
disobedience. (§ 19572, subds. (e), (o).) In December 2014,
Ramirez was placed on ATO and contacted Chief Tyler for
permission to return his assigned state vehicle to the Academy
and to collect personal items from his office. Chief Tyler granted
the request and instructed Ramirez to check in with him at the

                                  5
Academy at 10:00 a.m. on December 30, 2014. Ramirez came to
the Academy with other officers who received ATO letters on
December 30, 2014, sometime before 6:00 a.m., and he did not
check in with Chief Tyler. When Chief Tyler found Ramirez on
Academy grounds, Ramirez denied that Chief Tyler had
instructed Ramirez to check in at 10:00 a.m.
       The Board found that Ramirez violated section 19990 by
engaging in activity incompatible with his duties and through
failure of good behavior that discredited Cal Fire. (§ 19572,
subds. (r), (t).) As to the former, Ramirez violated Cal Fire’s
incompatible activities policy by driving to West Sacramento
during the Eiler Fire, which rendered him unable to promptly
respond to a call to duty had one been made. As to the latter,
Ramirez discredited Cal Fire and his employment by failing to
enforce its no-drinking policy and by failing to foster a working
environment free from sexual harassment. Ramirez was in a
leadership position and was expected to set an example. The
example he set was that the no-drinking policy does not apply to
celebrations, and sexual harassment is not important. “But,
employees who drink on duty can become unable to safely
perform their duties and subject [Cal Fire] to liability. And
sexual harassment limits the ability of qualified female
employees to perform their duties, as well as subjects [Cal Fire]
to liability.”
       Finally, the Board determined that Ramirez was
intentionally dishonest during the CHP investigation and later to
a superior officer. In the CHP interview, Ramirez “falsely denied

                                 6
being present when Captain Fleming slapped Cadet Samano on
the buttocks; but [he] was present.” He “inaccurately described
Captain Fleming’s action as tapping Cadet Samano; but [he] was
aware that Captain Fleming slapped Cadet Samano.” He “falsely
denied ever seeing inappropriate images of women displayed on
Academy grounds; but he had viewed images of women clad in
underwear or partially undressed.” Ramirez misleadingly
described the inappropriate images as family photos and the link
of the swingers’ website sent to him as spam. Ramirez also lied
when he falsely asserted to Chief Tyler that Chief Tyler had not
instructed him to check in at the Academy at 10:00 a.m. on
December 30, 2014. The Board found that, “[a]s a whole, when
questioned about his actions, [Ramirez] did not respond with
trustworthiness and integrity, but with the intent to obscure
damaging facts and minimize his potential exposure to
discipline.”
      The Board considered the factors from Skelly v. State
Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 217–218 (Skelly)—the extent
to which the employee’s conduct resulted in, or if repeated, is
likely to result in, harm to the public service; the likelihood of
reoccurrence; and the circumstances surrounding the
misconduct—when making its penalty decision.
      Addressing harm to the public service, the Board found
that Ramirez’s neglect of duty discredited himself and Cal Fire,
causing harm to the public service. Despite being responsible for
setting an example, Ramirez failed to follow procedures and
demonstrated a lax attitude about the environment at the

                                  7
Academy. The Board reasoned that the Academy is significant to
the public service because it trains cadets in firefighting, and the
public interest is served when cadets can train without being
subjected to inappropriate sexual conduct that may be
distracting, embarrassing, or stressful, whether or not it amounts
to unlawful sexual harassment. Ramirez was so inattentive to
his responsibility that he skipped through online training
without reading the material, his subordinates were emboldened
to share suggestive photographs of women, and one slapped
Cadet Samano in Ramirez’s presence. The Board found that Cal
Fire cannot enforce its policies if its supervisory employees do not
take them seriously. Further, if continued, Ramirez’s conduct
could harm the public service by damaging cadets’ ability to
successfully train at the Academy, and by setting a poor example
for cadets to carry back to their home units and forward in their
careers.
      Ramirez’s failure to prohibit alcohol consumption at the
graduation dinner fostered behavior that he knew was
prohibited, undermined Cal Fire’s efforts to eliminate that
behavior, and harmed the public service. His misuse of state
property also harmed the public service because the public is
entitled to have state resources used for purposes that promote
the public service. Finally, his insubordination and dishonesty
were discrediting, and dishonesty erodes public trust and
damaged Cal Fire’s ability to trust in Ramirez to act
independently in properly executing his duties.

                                 8
      The Board next determined that Ramirez’s failure to accept
responsibility for his actions and dishonesty about his misconduct
suggested a significant likelihood of reoccurrence.
      In mitigation, the Board acknowledged that Ramirez
contended his actions involved reactions to others’ misconduct
and not his own misconduct, but it determined that Ramirez was
ignoring his misuse of state property, engagement in an
incompatible activity, dishonesty, insubordination, and failure to
attend to his own job responsibilities. The Board recognized the
favorable fact that Ramirez had not sustained a previous adverse
action in the 3 years he worked as a seasonal employee or the 17
years he worked as a permanent employee. It considered
progressive discipline and a lesser penalty, such as a demotion,
that would remove Ramirez from a supervisory role. However,
the Board ultimately concluded that progressive discipline was
not warranted because Ramirez’s conduct was intentional, his
deliberate decision making evidenced poor judgment, and he was
dishonest. “Consideration of all relevant factors establishes that
penalty modification is unwarranted. Dismissal is harsh, but it
is a just and proper penalty.”
The Second Writ Petition
      Ramirez challenged the Board’s revised decision by filing
another petition for a writ of administrative mandamus, and the
trial judge who decided the first writ heard the matter. The trial
court denied the writ, begrudgingly concluding that the Board’s
findings were sufficient to support its decision to terminate
Ramirez. The court stated that the dishonesty and

                                 9
insubordination findings themselves sufficed to uphold dismissal.
The court noted that if it had been the trier of fact, it would have
made different factual determinations, and it would not have
selected dismissal as the appropriate penalty. However, given
the standard of review, the court found that a reasonable person
could have found that termination was proper, and reversal of
the Board’s decision would constitute an impermissible
substitution of the court’s discretion for that of the Board as to
the degree of punishment imposed.
                          DISCUSSION
I.   Governing Law and the Standard of Review
      The Board enforces civil service statutes and reviews
disciplinary actions. (California Youth Authority v. State
Personnel Bd. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575, 584.) “ ‘The Board
acts as an adjudicatory body, weighing the evidence to determine
the facts and exercising discretion to ascertain whether the
charges sustained are sufficient for the discipline imposed.
[Citation.] Because the Board is an agency of constitutional
authority, its findings of fact are reviewable in an administrative
mandamus proceeding under the substantial evidence test.
[Citation.] “The record must be viewed in a light most favorable
to the decision of the Board and its factual findings must be
upheld if they are supported by substantial evidence.” ’ ” (Pollak
v. State Personnel Bd. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 1394, 1403–1404
(Pollak).)
      “ ‘[In] a mandamus proceeding to review an administrative
order, the determination of the penalty by the administrative

                                 10
body will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of its
discretion.’ ” (Skelly, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 217.) “In considering
whether such abuse occurred in the context of public employee
discipline, . . . the overriding consideration . . . is the extent to
which the employee’s conduct resulted in, or if repeated is likely
to result in, ‘[harm] to the public service.’ [Citations.] Other
relevant factors include the circumstances surrounding the
misconduct and the likelihood of its recurrence.” (Id. at p. 218.)
      “ ‘ “ ‘Neither an appellate court nor a trial court is free to
substitute its discretion for that of the administrative agency
concerning the degree of punishment imposed.’ ” ’ ” (County of
Siskiyou v. State Personnel Bd. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1606,
1615.) “If reasonable minds may differ as to the propriety of the
penalty imposed, there has been no abuse of discretion.
[Citation.] It is only in the exceptional case, when it is shown
that reasonable minds cannot differ on the propriety of the
penalty, that an abuse of discretion is shown.” (Deegan v. City of
Mountain View (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 37, 46–47.)
      “ ‘[I]n a mandamus proceeding, an appellate court vis-a-
vis the trial court, conducts a de novo review concerning possible
abuse of discretion by the administrative agency. [Citation.] The
trial court’s determination of abuse or nonabuse of discretion by
the administrative agency is of no concern to the appellate court.
The appellate court gives no deference to the trial court's
determination.’ ” (Pollak, supra, 88 Cal.App.4th at p. 1404.) “
‘Conversely, . . . in a mandamus proceeding an appellate court

                                   11
vis-a-vis the administrative agency, does not independently or ‘de
novo’ determine penalty.’ ” (Ibid.)
II.   Analysis
      Here, the Board’s misconduct findings are not in dispute.
Rather, Ramirez claims that no reasonable person could find that
his dismissal was proper, so the Board abused its discretion in
selecting his penalty. We do not agree.
      The finding of dishonesty itself supports the termination.
“Dishonesty is incompatible with the public trust.” (Talmo v.
Civil Service Com. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 210, 231.) “By its
enactment of section 19572, subdivision (f), the Legislature
indicated a strong public policy against having dishonest
employees in the state service.” (Gee v. California State
Personnel Board (1970) 5 Cal.App.3d 713, 719 (Gee).)
      Here, the CHP conducted an administrative investigation
into incidents of Ramirez’s alleged employment misconduct,
Ramirez lied about facts related to those incidents, and he did so
with “intent to obscure damaging facts and minimize his
potential exposure to discipline.” Ramirez claims that there was
no harm or likely harm to the public service from his dishonesty,
but he hindered resolution of matters under investigation. (Cf.
Kolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Com. (2005)
132 Cal.App.4th 716, 722 [stating charges against fellow officer
would have been easier and more quickly proven if plaintiff had
simply responded honestly to investigators when first
questioned].) And the Board determined that Ramirez’s
dishonesty harmed the public service by discrediting himself,

                                12
damaging Cal Fire’s ability to trust him, and eroding the public
trust in Cal Fire and its employees as agents for the public good.
      Ramirez also argues that his dishonesty was not important
and went to immaterial matters. However, Cal Fire has a zero
tolerance policy for workplace violence, sexual harassment, and
unprofessional conduct. Ramirez was under investigation for
employment misconduct, including his improper handling of an
incident of sexual harassment and workplace violence and his
toleration of displays of photos of women in underwear or
partially nude on Academy grounds. Ramirez lied about facts
that went to the severity of the incident with Cadet Samano—
namely witnessing a slap to her buttocks that she described as a
5 of 10 in terms of force and that made her embarrassed and
uncomfortable. He lied about seeing inappropriate images
displayed by male employees. And he did so after CHP
admonished him that he had a duty to respond truthfully and
that failure to do so could result in dismissal.4 Ramirez also lied
to his supervisor about a fact central to the disobedience charges.
The Board could reasonably conclude that Ramirez’s repeated
dishonesty was sufficiently serious to warrant dismissal. (See
Cvrcek v. State Personnel Board (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 827, 828–
829 [auditor’s impermissible taking of documents that were not
“particularly remarkable or sensitive” from office file was
“relatively unimportant,” but his dishonesty about that conduct

      4 The CHP investigator also listed on the record the

matters that were under investigation at the beginning of the
interview.

                                13
supported dismissal]; Gee, supra, 5 Cal.App.3d at pp. 716, 718–
719 [auditor’s false statements on transfer application for alcohol
license made prior to his state employment constituted
dishonesty and supported penalty of dismissal].)
      Next, the Board found a likelihood of reoccurrence.
Ramirez argues that the isolated nature of certain incidents of
his misconduct shows that his behavior is unlikely to reoccur, but
his argument does not address his dishonesty. The Board
observed that dishonesty is a continuing character trait, and it
found that Ramirez made false statements in the CHP
investigation, he made a false statement to his superior, and he
failed to testify reliably at the ALJ hearing. These findings
substantiate the Board’s reasonable conclusion regarding the
likelihood of reoccurrence. (Paulino v. Civil Service Com. (1985)
175 Cal.App.3d 962, 972 [“Dishonesty is not an isolated act; it is
more a continuing trait of character.”]; Gee, supra, 5 Cal.App.3d
at pp. 718–719 [same].)
      As for the circumstances surrounding the misconduct,
Ramirez argues that numerous facts mitigated the findings
regarding inexcusable neglect of duty, insubordination, willful
disobedience, and misuse of his state vehicle, and he claims that
termination was too severe a penalty because his misconduct
related only to his performance as a supervisor. In doing so,
however, Ramirez does not provide any facts that mitigate what
the Board determined to be his intentional decision to lie to the
CHP and Chief Tyler.

                                14
      Finally, we reject Ramirez’s claim that, because he has
been an employee for many years, progressive discipline was the
only reasonable option. The question of whether progressive
discipline was appropriate rests within the Board’s discretion.
(Kazensky v. City of Merced (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 44, 76; Talmo,
supra, 231 Cal.App.3d at p. 230.) The Board embraces
progressive discipline to treat “problems of poor work
performance,” (In re R.N. (1992) SPB Precedential Dec. No. 92-
07, p. 6, fn. 3), but, as Ramirez recognizes, progressive discipline
is not required in cases of serious willful misconduct (ibid.). The
Board acknowledged Ramirez’s service as a mitigating factor;
however, it found that his misconduct was not a performance
issue and was instead the product of deliberate decision making
that evidenced poor judgment. In addition, the Board reasoned
that Ramirez’s dishonesty and lack of remorse weighed in favor of
the harshest penalty, as Cal Fire should not be required to retain
an untrustworthy employee. The Board in this case could
reasonably conclude there was harm to the public service, and
Ramirez had exhibited repeated dishonesty and poor judgment
such that his decision making could no longer be relied upon,
which meant that terminating his employment was proper.
      While reasonable minds could differ on the penalty, the
Board affirmed Ramirez’s dismissal. “It is only in the exceptional
case, when it is shown that reasonable minds cannot differ on the
propriety of the penalty, that an abuse of discretion is shown.”
(Deegan v. City of Mountain View, supra, 72 Cal.App.4th at
p. 47.) This is not such an exceptional case.

                                 15
                              DISPOSITION
       The order is affirmed. Respondents are awarded their costs
on appeal.

                                                    BROWN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

STREETER, J.
HIRAMOTO, J.

Ramirez v. California State Personnel Board (A165897)

       
        Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of
Contra Costa, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article
VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                       16