In a published decision, the Court of Appeal handed
Officer Roderick Townsel an important legal decision in his five-year
legal battle with the San Diego Metropolitan Transit District. The
district until now has refused to provide evidentiary hearings to
employees that they chose to discipline. The court ruled that Townsel
has a right to full due process evidentiary hearing as a result of his
termination from employment.
Townsel, who worked as a code compliance
officer for the district initially, received a short-term suspension for
alleged misconduct in 1993. The district refused to grant any type of
meaningful hearing to contest the charges.
The Legal Defense Fund authorized a lawsuit that
ended in defeat in Federal Court after the court ruled that Townsel was
not entitled to a hearing since he was not a "Civil Service"
employee.
While this matter was being litigated, the district
pursued allegations that Townsel had committed two counts of battery on
three juveniles who tried to travel on the Trolley without buying a
ticket. The local district attorney issued the charges and the district
fired Townsel.
Panel attorney Everett Bobbitt represented
Townsel in the criminal trial. After a one-week trial and 10 minutes of
deliberation, the jury acquitted Townsel of all charges.
Townsel then asked for an evidentiary hearing before
an impartial tribunal and was refused. Instead, the board of directors
convened a hearing where Townsel was not allowed to call witnesses on
his behalf or to cross-examine witnesses that testified on behalf of the
district.
The board of directors appointed three of their own
to hear the matter. Townsel was less than surprised to learn that the
board upheld his termination.
The Legal Defense Fund authorized Everett Bobbitt to
pursue the matter in Superior Court. The Superior Court agreed with the
previous decision of the Federal Court and refused to order a meaningful
hearing. The Legal Defense Fund then authorized Bobbitt to pursue the
matter in the Court of Appeal.
In a unanimous 19-page published decision, the Court
of Appeal ordered the district to grant Townsel an evidentiary hearing
before an impartial tribunal.
The court said that the 14th Amendment to the United
States Constitution "places procedural constraints on the actions
of government that work a deprivation of interests enjoying the stature
of property within the meaning of the Due Process Clause".
The court noted that it is not important whether an
employee is a "Civil Service" employee. When an employee can
only be terminated for cause the employee then has "a
constitutionally protected interest in continued employment." The
court further found that the Federal Court decision was not binding on
Townsel or the Superior Court of California.
This case should resolve issues similar to Townsels,
when a government agency attempts to avoid provided due process by
calling their employees something other than "Civil Service"
employees.
