COURT OF APPEAL
RULES
IN FAVOR OF
TERMINATED PLACENTIA OFFICER
On May 19, 2000, the
Court of Appeal for the State of California, Fourth Appellate District,
Division Three, issued its opinion upholding a Writ Judgment from
the Orange County Superior Court compelling the reinstatement of a
former Placentia police officer. The appellate ruling in Mebane v.
City of Placentia, et al. affirmed a Peremptory Writ of
Mandate in favor of former Placentia Police Officer Michael Mebane,
issued October 27, 1999, by the Orange County Superior Court. Said Writ
commanded the City of Placentia to immediately restore Mebane to his
position as a police officer with Placentia and to deliver to Mebane all
lost pay, compensation and benefits, together with interest thereon from
the date of his termination in November 1997. Throughout the litigation,
Mebane was represented by Joseph Straka, of The Petersen Law Firm
located in Costa Mesa, California.
In January 1996, Mebane
was hired as an entry level police officer by the City of Placentia. At
the time of his hiring, the city informed Mebane that he was subject to
an 18-month probationary period. Mebane performed his duties in a
satisfactory manner and received positive evaluations.
Approximately 15 months
after being hired, the Placentia Police Department commenced an internal
investigation of Mebane for an alleged violation of department rules.
Mebane continued to perform his duties as a police officer for the city.
On July 29, 1997, 18
months and 1 day after Mebane was hired by Placentia, he received a
telephone message on his home answering machine from a lieutenant with
the Placentia Police Department. The message instructed Mebane to check
his voice mail at the police station. Upon doing so, Mebane heard a
message from the lieutenant stating that Mebane’s probationary period
had been extended indefinitely. Mebane continued his normal duties as a
police officer.
On or about August 16,
1997, Mebane was given a performance evaluation, purportedly covering
the period of January 29, 1996 to July 29, 1997. In an addendum to the
evaluation authored by the same lieutenant who left the phone message,
the department purported to extend Mebane’s probationary period for an
indefinite amount of time. On November 12, 1997, approximately 21 ˝
months after being hired, Mebane was terminated. The Notice of
Termination informed Mebane that he was being terminated for failing to
meet probationary standards.
On April 23, 1999, Mebane
filed his Verified Writ of Mandate in the Orange County Superior
Court. Mebane set forth multiple theories as to why he could not, after
being employed for over 21 months by the city, be subject to a
probationary termination. His multiple theories revolved around two main
premises: (1) that section 2.24.080 of the Placentia Municipal Code
established only a six-month probationary period for police employees;
and (2) that even if the City was correct and an 18-month probationary
period was applicable, the city failed to effectively terminate Mebane
under its own personnel rules prior to his obtaining permanent status.
The city answered Mebane’s Writ, relying on the affirmative defense of
laches (i.e., that Mebane had waited too long from his termination to
file his Writ) and that Placentia Personnel Rule IX provided for an
18-month probationary period. The city ignored Mebane’s alternative
theories relative to the city’s failure to properly terminate him even
assuming the 18-month probationary period.
On November 1, 1999,
judgment on the Peremptory Writ was granted in favor of Mebane.
The Orange County Superior Court found that Mebane was subject to a
six-month probationary period and not that of an 18-month probationary
period, as the city had been assessing against all its newly hired
officers. The city appealed the judgment.
In the meantime, instead
of maintaining the status quo, or reinstating Mebane and paying him the
accrued back pay as ordered in the Writ, the city initiated new
termination proceedings against him. Mebane was forced to first seek an
Injunction from the Orange County Superior Court, and then a Writ of
Supersedeas with the Appellate Court, in order to stop the
termination proceedings until the Court of Appeal ruled on the city’s
appeal. Mebane was successful in getting the city to stop the second
termination proceedings until the outcome of the city’s appeal on the
Writ.
On May 19, 2000, the
Court of Appeal issued its opinion upholding the Writ judgment. Although
the Court of Appeal differed with the Superior Court as to why the Writ
should have been granted, it felt that the Superior Court had come to
the correct conclusion in ordering Mebane reinstated. The Court of
Appeal found that an 18-month probationary period was applicable to
Mebane, but that the city had failed to follow its own rules for
properly terminating a probationary employee and, thus, Mebane had
gained defacto status as a permanent employee. This was one of Mebane’s
alternative arguments. As a permanent employee, Mebane could only be
terminated for just cause. If the city intends on terminating Mebane, it
must do so for cause and not as a probationary employee.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
