Michael Christoph Kreutzer v. City and County of San Francisco
In the Court of Appeal of the State of California
26 August 2008
A116389 (City and County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC-04-431522)

“Exempt” Employee not Entitled to Civil Service System Protections

This case questions whether an “exempt” employee can avail himself of protections under the civil service system which includes due process, reinstatement and back pay in cases of discharge from the service, among others.

It appears that one Dr. Kreutzer, a licensed physician with board certification in both adult psychiatry and child and adolescent psychiatry, was hired by the City and County of San Francisco as half-time medical director of the Southeast Child Family Therapy Center (Southeast). However, he did not take a posted civil service examination for his position nor was he placed on or hired from an eligible list.

Dr. Kreutzer position was classified by the City’s Civil Service Commission as class 2230 – a Physician Specialist which is exempt from the City’s civil service system. When he was hired, he signed an “Appointment Processing” form indicating that he was an “exempt-permanent” employee but the form did not have the box for “non-civil service” checked. He did not understand nor ask what “exempt” mean.

Nearly a year later, Dr. Kreutzer was selected and worked for an additional position of part-time medical director of Comprehensive Child Crisis Services. Like the first, he did not take a posted examination for the position neither was he placed on or hired from an eligible list, nor served a probationary period.

Eventually, Dr. Kreutzer was promoted to class 2232 as Senior Physician Specialist which was also classified by the Commission as exempt from the civil service system. Again, he was not selected for this position from an eligible list and did not serve a probationary period.

Dr. Kreutzer then obtained clinical privileges at San Francisco General Hospital (SF General) by virtue of his employment in part-time position under the auspices of the University of California, San Francisco, as a psychiatrist at SF General. During the same time, he also worked occasionally at Westside Community Mental Health Center and Westside Crisis Clinic.

It was then that he received a document from the City labeled “Notice of Release from Exempt Appointment” or simply, the release notice, which informed him that he would be “released from his exempt appointment in Class 2232 Senior Physician Specialist. Your services are no longer needed.” The notice was accompanied by a separation report stating that Dr. Kreutzer’s position was “permanent exempt” and that his release was “non-disciplinary.”

Consequently, he challenged this thru arbitration but obtained unfavorable result. He also appealed his release to the Commission arguing that his position involve significant administrative and supervisory duties, therefore, he is entitled under the Charter to receive protections of the civil service system.

It was only after almost two years from the time he was released that Dr. Kreutzer filed the complaint before the court. In his amended complaint, he alleged retaliatory discharge and violation of due process.

After trial, the trial court rendered decision in favor of Dr. Kreutzer both as to the timeliness of his complaint and as to the merits. The trial court ordered that he be reinstated with back pay. The City appealed.

Particularly discussed in this summary is whether or not Dr. Kreutzer, based on the foregoing facts, is entitled to the protections of the civil service system.

In deciding this issue, the Court of Appeal of the State of California upheld the contention of the City. Citing pertinent provision of the City Charter, the Court concluded that the Commission has already determined, under the predecessor of such provision, that the duties of physicians in class 2232, which include the position Dr. Kreutzer held at the time of his release were primarily clinical rather than supervisory and administrative and that class 2232 should therefore be an exempt classification.

In sum, the Court held that the trial court erred in ordering the City and County of San Francisco to reinstate Dr. Kreutzer, an exempt employee, into a nonexempt position because a government employee hired into a position expressly classified as exempt from civil service is not entitled to civil service system protections upon release from position, even if a court finds that, based on duties of position, it should not have been classified as exempt.

Also the Court ruled that where a government employee is released from employment for reasons characterized only as non disciplinary, and not otherwise publicly disclosed, employee's liberty interest in reputation has not been infringed. Therefore, Dr. Kreutzer is not entitled to relief.