Paterson v. City of Los Angeles
Filed June 16, 2009
Cite as 2009 SOS 3682

Act Applies to Investigation that could Lead to Punitive Action

Spouses Robert and Scarlett Paterson (Patersons) were Los Angeles Police officers. Scarlett was on a bonding leave as she recently gave birth. When Robert phone in sick, Lieutenant Raymond Garvin (Garvin) suspected that he was not sick and was just abusing sick time.

Consequently, Garvin sent Sergeant Adrian Legaspi (Legaspi) to check on the Paterson’s home. The spouses Paterson were not at home but Legaspi managed to speak to them on a recorded phone conversation.

Thereafter, Legaspi prepared a formal complaint against the Patersons for a possible sick time abuse. As a result, the Patersons were temporarily relieved from duty. However, the Board of Rights exonerated them. Consequently, they were reinstated and received back pay.

Subsequently, the Paterson sued the City of Los Angeles, Legaspi and others. They alleged that the City violated the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (Act) for not affording them procedural rights. As for other grounds, intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision were brought against the City and Legaspi.

The Patersons sought civil penalty of $25,000 each, punitive damages, damages for emotional distress, and money damages.

The City and Legaspi moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication. The City alleged doctrines of workers' compensation exclusivity and governmental immunity. The City argued that the Act only applies if there has been punitive action and since the Board of Rights nullified any punitive action, the Act did not apply.

The trial court granted the motion and ruled in favor of the City and Legaspi.

On appeal, the California Court of Appeal held that while the City and Legaspi were entitled to summary adjudication on the tort causes of action, they were not entitled to summary adjudication on the cause of action under the Act.

The appellate court made the following statements:

1. Under the Act, an investigation that led to filing of disciplinary charges constituted “punitive action”. Consequently, the agency could be held liable under the Act even though no discipline was actually imposed because charges were rejected by the Board of Rights.
   
   The fact that Legaspi went to the Paterson’s home with the intent to investigate and not to check on Robert’s well-being was sufficient to plead cause of action for violation of the Act.


2. Judicial/administrative immunity under Government Code Sec. 821.6 prevented a police officer from suing employing agency and its investigator for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision, in connection with allegedly improper investigation and interrogation.

Hence, the appeal court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.