Valencia v. County of Sonoma
filed December 31, 2007, First District, Div. One,
Cite as 2007 SOS 12

Demoted Employee Finds Relief From Excessive Disciplinary Action

Joaquin Valencia was employed by the County of Sonoma in its Department of Health Services. After an alleged misconduct, Valencia was given an order of termination by the director of health services. Valencia appealed his order of termination to the County Civil Service Commission.

During hearing, the Commission vacated Valencia’s dismissal but modified the order. The order directed that Valencia be demoted a grade and serve a one-year probationary period.

Valencia petitioned for a writ of mandate in the trial court, claiming that the discipline was in excess of that authorized by the memorandum of understanding (MOU) then in effect between the county and the bargaining agent that represented him.

The trial court ruled that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing a penalty that violated the MOU.

The county and the Commission appealed the ruling of the trial court.

After reviewing the case, the First District, Division One, affirmed the decision of the trial court. It affirmed the ruling on the following grounds:

• that as an agency of the county, the Commission was bound expressly by the MOU entered into on behalf of the county by its board of supervisors.


• that under controlling statute, MOUs approved by a local agency’s governing body are binding between the bargaining agent and the local government.

The  appeals court also rejected the arguments that the Commission was not bound by the MOU when reviewing and revising that discipline as cited in Los Angeles County Civil Service Com. v. Superior Court , 23 Cal.3d 55 (1978).

The court rejected that approach as contrary to logic and policy based on the following reasons:

• First, it was contrary to logic because the Commission was merely a sub-unit of the county. If an agreement approved by the board of supervisors was binding on the county, one would expect the agreement to be binding on the various agencies of the county as well.


• Second, it was contrary to policy because it would render portions of the MOU illusory, thereby undercutting the preference for negotiated employment terms reflected in the pertinent statute.

In short, the First Appellate District affirmed the earlier order of the district court which held that a county civil service commission that vacated the termination of a county employee may alternatively impose only discipline consistent with the memorandum of understanding governing the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment. Therefore the court found that the demotion imposed on Valencia was in excess of the discretionary powers of the commission.