Otto v. Los Angeles Unified School District
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
CROSKEY, J.
In this appeal, we decide the question whether a written memorandum, which documents a meeting between a public safety officer and his supervisor and which is placed in the officer’s personnel file, qualifies as punitive action and warrants the administrative appeal provided for in Government Code sections 3303 and 3304. The trial court ruled that such written memoranda placed in the personnel files of the two appellants in this matter do not constitute written reprimands and, on that basis, denied their request for writ of mandamus relief.
Existing law compels the conclusion…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Baggett v. GatesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- White v. County of SacramentoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- Caloca v. County of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
- Gordon v. HorsleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Giuffre v. SparksCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1999
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Wences v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Seligsohn v. DayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- Otto v. Los Angeles Unified School DistrictCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Paterson v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Morgado v. City & Cnty. of S.F., California Court of Appeal, 5th District2017
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.