Skelly v. State Personnel Bd

In Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, a physician employed by a state agency as a medical consultant was notified of his termination due to intemperance, inexcusable absence without leave and other failure of good behavior. ( Skelly, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 197.) However, at the hearing on the matter, the agency presented no evidence that the quality or quantity of the doctor's work was inadequate or that the performance of his duties was adversely affected. ( Id. at p. 199.) On the issue of punishment, the state high court concluded termination was excessive. The court explained that the overriding consideration in assessing whether the agency abused its discretion "is the extent to which the employee's conduct resulted in, or if repeated is likely to result in, 'harm to the public service.'" ( Id. at pp. 217-218.) The court identified other relevant factors as the circumstances surrounding the misconduct and the likelihood of recurrence. ( Id. at p. 218.) In Skelly , the court did not say the medical board must prove actual harm to the public. Rather, it is sufficient if the agency proves such harm is likely if the conduct is repeated. In other words, a risk of harm is sufficient to support license revocation. In the face of misconduct, a licensing agency is not required to wait for an injury to occur before taking action against a licensee. The Court held that a permanent employee with a property interest in continued employment is entitled to certain procedural safeguards before being removed from employment. While those due process safeguards do not include a full evidentiary hearing before removal, minimally, they include "notice of the proposed action, the reasons therefor, a copy of the charges and materials upon which the action is based, and the right to respond, either orally or in writing, to the authority initially imposing discipline." (Id. at p. 215.) The California Supreme Court considered the constitutional adequacy of procedures provided by state law for the taking of punitive action against a permanent civil service employee. After an exhaustive analysis of recent federal and California opinions dealing with questions of procedural due process, as applied to punitive action which results in the deprivation of a significant property interest, the court concluded: "It is clear that due process does not require the state to provide the employee with a full trial-type evidentiary hearing prior to the initial taking of punitive action. However, . . . due process does mandate that the employee be accorded certain procedural rights before the discipline becomes effective. As a minimum, these preremoval safeguards must include notice of the proposed action, the reasons therefor, a copy of the charges and materials upon which the action is based, and the right to respond, either orally or in writing, to the authority initially imposing discipline." ( Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., supra, 15 Cal.3d 194, 215.) The Court held that procedural due process requires that before taking punitive action other than a short suspension against a civil service employee, the state must accord that employee at least notice of the proposed action, the reasons therefor, a copy of the charges and materials upon which the action is based, and the right to respond, either orally or in writing, to the authority initially imposing discipline. A "full trial-type evidentiary hearing" is not required prior to such punitive action (p. 215).