County of Santa Cruz v. Civil Service Commission of Santa Cruz (Jack)
Filed February 10, 2009
publication ordered March 11, 2009
Sixth District
Cite as 2009 SOS 1493

Reduced Penalty of County Officer Charged with Gender Harassment Reversed

The issue arose from a case involving Sergeant George Jack, who was charged with gender harassment by a female subordinate. An internal investigation was initiated and completed on June 2006.

The internal affairs report showed that Jack had violated some of the county’s policies, which include the following acts:

• Making false statements (Sheriff’s Officer policy C.02.0)


• Insubordination (Civil Service Rule 130, Section XIV.B.5)


• Willful disobedience (Civil Service Rule 130, section XIV. B. 12)


• Conduct unbecoming an officer (Sheriff’s Officer policy C.02.E.1)

As a result, the Sheriff ordered Jack’s demotion from Sergeant to Deputy Sheriff, believing that supervisors who cannot be trusted or were showing insubordination, cannot effectively lead others.

Jack made an appeal to the Civil Service Commission. After hearing on March 22 and 23, 2007, the Commission found that there was no “preponderance of evidence” to establish a just cause for Jack’s demotion but which justifies a “30-day suspension with no back pay”.

Following that, the County requested the Commission for issue findings in support of its decision but the Commission issued a written statement instead.

Thus on March 2007, the County filed a petition for reconsideration, which the Commission denied. In response, on April 2007, the County filed a petition for al

ternative writ of mandate with the Santa Cruz Superior court asking the Commission to issue findings in support of its decision.

On May 2007, the Commission issued a new decision with no specific factual findings but upholding the evidence presented that showed Jack made the alleged violations.

In addition, the Commission reinstated Jack to the rank of Sergeant and reduced his penalty to a 30-year suspension.

As a result, the County filed a peremptory writ of mandate with the Santa Cruz Superior court seeking a reversal of the Commission’s decision to reinstate Jack. The court denied the petition, holding that the Commission did not abuse its discretion. The County made an appeal.

During appeal, the Sixth District appeals court found that the Commission abused its discretion when it reinstated Jack to Sergeant rank. The court also confirmed the findings of the Commission, which justify the penalty previously imposed:

• That Jack had created a hostile environment for a female subordinate
• That he disobeyed a direct order not to contact the subordinate and further intimidate her
• That he warned or threaten subordinate about the contact
• That he lied to his supervisor about it

The court therefore reversed the decision denying the petition for a writ of mandate. The court also directed the trial court to issue a new and different order granting the writ.