AUTHORS*
Scott Tiedemann
Nathaniel Price
Jackson v. Board of Civ. Serv. Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles, 99 Cal. App. 5th 648 (2024)
The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) served Nathan Jackson, who worked as a detention officer, with a notice of intent to suspend him for 10 days. He was charged with reporting late for duty, reporting unfit for duty, leaving his post without authorization, and refusing to provide a doctor's note as directed. A report accompanying the notice of intent to suspend Jackson also noted he displayed "objective symptoms of being under the influence." In the final disciplinary notice, LAPD sustained the charges, which remained substantially the same as in the initial notice, except that it replaced the charge of reporting unfit for duty—instead alleging Jackson "failed to wear [his] official Department approved uniform."
Following a hearing, the Board of Civil Service Commissioners upheld the suspension and sustained all counts. Jackson then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate in the superior court, alleging Skelly violations based on LAPD's amendment of the allegations in the disciplinary notice. He sought to have his suspension set aside and backpay awarded. The superior court found that the evidence supported all but one of the allegations.
The trial court found the record was unclear about whether Jackson could be disciplined under LAPD policy for reporting late on only one occasion. The trial court was also concerned with Skelly violations since LAPD added a new charge in its final notice. Therefore, the court vacated the suspension and ordered the Board to reconsider its decision based on these concerns.
Jackson appealed.
The California Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was premature because the trial court had ordered the Board to reconsider its findings. It noted that once the Board issued a new decision, Jackson could file a new or supplemental petition for writ of mandate based on the Board's new decision and, if Jackson was still dissatisfied, he could file yet another appeal.
Balakrishnan v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 99 Cal. App. 5th 513 (2024)
Gopal Balakrishnan was a tenured professor at the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC). In 2017, an anonymous letter accused Balakrishnan of a pattern of sexual intimidation, harassment, and assault. He denied the accusations. UCSC hired an outside investigator and asked individuals with information to contact its Title IX office. UCSC received multiple complaints, and launched a single investigation into four specific complaints by Jane Doe, John Doe 1, Anneliese H., and John Doe 2.
The investigation sustained three of the complaints. The investigator found that Balakrishnan had engaged in unwelcome sexual conduct in violation of UCSC's Sexual Harassment Policy with UCSC student Anneliese H. Two days after graduation, Anneliese was at an off-campus graduation party and had become nauseous from drinking—and "on the verge of blacking out or browning out." Balakrishnan walked her home. Anneliese stated that when she "came to," she was in her bed with Balakrishnan trying to have sex with her.
The investigation also found that Balakrishnan engaged in unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature with Jane Doe, a poet and academic who was neither a student nor an employee of UCSC. It found that Balakrishnan and Jane Doe were at the home of a friend
[Page 13]
who was hosting a poetry summit when, sometime after midnight, Balakrishnan entered the bedroom Doe was sharing with "Witness 1," and asked to have sex with Doe, who instead "shooed" him out of the room. Sometime later, Doe awoke to find Balakrishnan standing naked and "looming over her" while she lay in bed. This time, Witness 1 had to forcibly remove him from the room and barricade the door with furniture so he could not reenter. Despite the factual findings, the investigatory report did not substantiate a violation of the university's sexual harassment policy because it only applied to "members of the university community."
The...
