Mays v. City of Los Angeles
Filed April 17, 2008
Cite as 2008 SOS 2210

Clarification of Section 334 (d) of POBRA Regarding Notification of Discipline

Plaintiff Sergeant Jon Mays received a written form entitled “Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action” from his employer, Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD).

The above disciplinary action was brought about by allegations that plaintiff lost internal affairs documents and failed to report said loss immediately. The documents were taken from his automobile during a burglary that occurred while his vehicle was parked at his residential driveway.

The said form contained four “penalties” that could be proposed to the Chief of Police for misconduct involving sworn tenured employees that include:

1. Suspension;


2. Demotion;


3. Suspension plus demotion; or


4. “That the matter be adjudicated by a Board of Rights (Board)”

Only the fourth option was checked on the form provided to plaintiff.

Thereafter, Plaintiff was reprimanded.

Plaintiff contested the reprimand by initiating an administrative appeal. He also filed a petition for writ of mandate in the superior court.

Plaintiff alleged, among other claims, that the notice he received did not satisfy section 3304(d) of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA), because no specific penalty was specified.

Section 3304, subdivision (d) requires the public agency “to notify the officer of the specific disciplinary action that is being proposed, not merely to advise the officer that some disciplinary action is being contemplated.”

The trial court denied the petition holding that plaintiff was adequately notified within one year of the “proposed disciplinary action,” as mandated by section 3304(d).

On appeal, The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision. It concluded that the notice received by plaintiff, although given within one year of discovery of the alleged misconduct, was insufficient to satisfy section 3304(d). This is because it notified him only of the action proposed to the Chief of Police that the misconduct be adjudicated by a Board of Rights. Moreover, it “did not specify any ‘proposed disciplinary action’ as explicitly required by section [3304(d).”

The California Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appeal court and remanded the case. It made the following clarifications:

• The POBRA provision does not oblige an employer to provide notice of the specific proposed discipline within the limitations period.


• The fundamental purpose of the section [3304(d) of POBRA was to place a one-year limitation on investigations of officer misconduct. Employers are still required to notify the officer that discipline may be imposed for the identified misconduct within the limitations period.


• In this case, the notice complied with the POBRA. Mays was notified within the one-year period that agency had concluded investigation and determined that he had committed specific misconduct. He was also notified that those charges would "be adjudicated by a Board of Rights" even though no specific penalty was proposed within that time.