YUBA COUNTY SHERIFF’S
DEPUTY REINSTATED WITH BACK PAY BENEFITS AND INTEREST
Yuba County Sheriff’s
Deputy Sharon Sager has been reinstated as a deputy sheriff with full
back pay, benefits and interest by order of the Yuba County Superior
Court. The decision was rendered after the Yuba County Sheriff’s
Department separated Sager from her employment, alleging she had
resigned.
Sager has been a sheriff’s
deputy in Yuba County for more than 20 years. On November 8, 2000, Sager
was working patrol. Her sergeant called in sick. The past practice at
the department was to assign the senior deputy on shift as the temporary
supervisor. Sager was the senior deputy on shift. However, rather than
assign Sager as temporary supervisor, the department called in a male
deputy many years her junior to fill in as supervisor.
This was not the first
time the department had passed over Sager to fill a temporary supervisor
assignment. Sager had been passed over on numerous occasions with the
department using the excuse that it was merely an oversight. Sager
contacted her lieutenant in an effort to obtain an explanation. The
lieutenant refused to explain why the decision had been made and told
Sager that she had limitations. Sager had never been told she had
limitations and suspected that the decision was made because she is
female. Sager contacted her captain for an explanation. He refused to
talk to her and said to put her questions in writing.
Sager returned to the
sheriff’s department and turned her identification card and firearm
over to the captain. She again asked him to explain what limitations she
had. The captain asked her for her key to the back door.
Sager then met with
Sheriff Virginia Black and explained to her what was going on. The
sheriff told Sager that she did not have any limitations. The sheriff
asked Sager if she wanted to quit. Sager said "no". The
sheriff then stated that Sager still had a job. Sager was authorized to
take the rest of the day off and to call the department in the morning.
Sager’s husband contacted the sheriff later that day and was assured
by the sheriff that Sager still had a job. On November 9, 2000, Sager
called the department as directed and was informed that the department
had accepted her resignation. The department never attempted to obtain a
resignation in writing.
On December 4, 2000,
Sager contacted LDF panel attorney Steven W. Welty with the Law Firm of
Mastagni, Holstedt, Chiurazzi & Amick. The county was placed on
notice by Welty that Sager had not resigned. A request was made for a
disciplinary appeal based on an involuntary separation from employment.
The county refused to provide Sager with an administrative appeal
alleging that her resignation had been accepted and the action did not
constitute discipline.
On March 27, 2001, Welty
filed a Writ of Mandate in the Yuba County Superior Court seeking to
compel the county to reinstate Sager with back pay and benefits. A
Motion for Peremptory Disqualification was also filed asking that the
case be reassigned to a different judge. All the judges in Yuba County recused
themselves. Nevada County Superior Court Judge Kathleen Butz was brought
in to hear the case.
The law governing
resignation is contractual. There has to be a valid offer and acceptance
of the offer. The legal arguments in the Writ of Mandate were threefold.
First, Sager’s actions on November 8, 2000, were not sufficiently
definite to constitute an offer of resignation. Second, even if an offer
of resignation was made, it was rescinded before the county accepted it.
Third, even if an offer of resignation was made and accepted, the offer
was invalid because it had been coerced. A hearing on the matter
occurred on July 9, 2001. The attorneys presented argument and testimony
was presented in the form of declarations. On July 20, 2001, the Yuba
County Superior Court issued it’s decision. The court found that Sager
did offer to resign. However, her subsequent actions constituted a
withdrawal of the offer such that the county had no resignation before
it that could be accepted. Sager was reinstated to her former status
effective November 9, 2000, the day she allegedly resigned.
It should be noted that
the versions of what occurred on November, 8, 2000, differed greatly
between the account of Sager and the account of the department. However,
courts are reluctant to uphold a resignation when there is ambivalence
concerning the resignation. Doubtful cases will be decided against
resignation. In this case the county never even attempted to get the
"phantom resignation" in writing. The absence of documentary
proof, coupled with the testimony of Sager and her husband, created
significant doubt in the mind of the court as to what had occurred. In
addition, Welty was able to effectively argue weaknesses in the county’s
position. For example, the sheriff admitted she told Sager’s husband
that Sager still had a job. The sheriff then attempted to explain that
what she was saying was that Sager still had a job while the county
decided whether to accept her resignation. Such testimony was not
convincing.
The absence of a writing
in a disputed case such as this adds substantial weight to the testimony
of Sager. Courts clearly recognize the potential for abuse that would be
present if employers could effectively separate "for cause"
employees from their job merely by saying the employee resigned.
Obtaining a written resignation from an employee is not a difficult task
if the employee actually intends to resign. While there is no legal
requirement that a resignation be in writing, an employer failing to
obtain one does so at their own risk. If the department really believed
that Sager wanted to resign, they should have obtained it in writing so
that the intent of all parties would be clear. Such action would have
also provided Sager with the opportunity to express that she was not
resigning or had decided to rescind the offer.
In addition to obtaining
reinstatement with back pay and benefits for Sager, Welty requested an
award of attorney fees and costs. The court awarded attorney fees and
costs in this action in a stipulated amount of $7,000.00. This money is
forwarded to LDF in a continuing effort to keep your legal defense
coverage affordable.
LDF Home Page | News
Article Index
