California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd

In California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. v. State Personnel Bd. (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1133 (CCPOA), the California Supreme Court the consequences of the Board's failure to render a decision within the time limit as set forth in Government Code section 18671.1. Government Code section 18671.1 states that, in all employee disciplinary cases, the state personnel board "shall" render a decision within six months following the date a petition is filed or 90 days from the time the case is submitted, whichever is less. The statute imposed no penalty or consequence for failure to comply with the deadline, but provided that if the board did not render a decision within the period, the employee "will be deemed to have exhausted all available administrative remedies." (Peace Officers Assn., supra, 10 Cal. 4th at pp. 1137-1138.) The court first noted that the absence of a sanction for failure to comply with the deadline suggested that the Legislature did not intend to deprive the board of jurisdiction. Rather, by providing that if the board failed to render a decision within the deadline the employee shall be deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies, the Legislature intended only to allow the employee experiencing the delay with an option to seek judicial relief. ( Peace Officers Assn., supra, 10 Cal. 4th at pp. 1145-1146.) The court concluded, "The requirement that a decision be rendered within the statutory time is directory, not mandatory. The Board retains jurisdiction over the employee's appeal notwithstanding its failure to render a decision within the statutory time limits. However, because the statute directs that the Board render a timely decision, an employee who has not waived the time limit may seek a writ of mandate against the Board to compel the Board to decide the appeal by a date certain. Alternatively, because the statute also provides that the employee is deemed to have exhausted all available administrative remedies, he or she may seek a writ of mandate against the appointing authority to set aside the adverse action. In such a mandate proceeding the employee bears the burden of establishing that the adverse action was not supported by good cause. If the Board renders a decision while the mandate proceeding against the employing authority is pending, the employee may, but is not required to, dismiss the mandate proceeding and seek review of the Board's decision by a petition for writ of mandamus filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5." (CCPOA, at pp. 1138-1139.) According to CCPOA, supra, 10 Cal.4th at pages 1154-1155, an employee selecting this option would proceed under section 1085. The petition for writ of mandate must state a prima facie case by alleging facts showing that: (1) the Board has failed to render a timely decision; (2) the petitioner has not waived the right to a timely decision; (3) the adverse action of the appointing authority is not justified either because the conduct on which the charges were based did not occur, or because that conduct either does not constitute a basis for discipline or was justified. If the petition states a prima facie case, an alternative writ must be issued by the superior court. Once the alternative writ has issued, under the rules applicable to petitions for writ of mandamus brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, the petitioner bears the burden of proving the truth of those allegations. (Id. at p. 1155.)