California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Government Law

GOVERNMENT LAW
Government Law Case Summaries
 

■ Munroe v. LA County Civil Serv. Comm'n, No. B208003

INTRODUCTION

            When the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (the DPW) discharged Massie Munroe from her job, it notified her of the 15-day window in which to seek an appeal hearing with the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission (the Commission).  Munroe did not notify the Commission for more than 60 days, and so the Commission denied her appeal as untimely.  The trial court granted Munroe’s petition for writ of mandate and directed the Commission to accept her late appeal.  The court reasoned that the Commission abused its discretion in failing to deem Munroe’s appeal as good cause for an extension of time to appeal.  The DPW appeals.  We reverse the judgment granting the writ petition.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

            After holding a Skelly hearing,[1] the DPW discharged Munroe from her position as an associate civil engineer for her “threatening and intimidating statements about ‘guns’ and ‘shooting’ people in the workplace.  [¶] . . . disruptive behavior [¶] . . . failure to comply with supervisory instructions.”  The County of Los Angeles has a “Zero Tolerance Policy” for acts of violence or threats in the workplace.

            The DPW’s notice of discharge informed Munroe that she had the “right to appeal the action and request a hearing before the Civil Service Commission.”  (The Commission.)  The notice also informed Munroe that her request “must be sent within fifteen (15) business days . . . from the date on which this letter was mailed or given to you to the Civil Service Commission, 222 North Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90012” with a copy sent to Donald L. Wolfe, Director of Public Works.  The DPW personally served the notice of discharge on Munroe at her Skelly hearing on November 9, 2006.  Munroe’s attorney, F. Bari Nejadpour, signed for its receipt.  Munroe had until December 4, 2006, to request an appeal hearing.

            On January 29, 2007, 52 days later, Munroe, through her attorney, sent a letter to the Commission, purportedly enclosing a copy of a request for an appeal hearing, and faxed a copy to the Commission on January 31, 2007.

            On March 12, 2007, Nejadpour sent a second letter to the Commission.  Therein, Nejadpour explained that Munroe construed her termination as wrongful and sought redress from the Commission.  The termination decision, the letter averred, was not based on scientific, medical, psychological, criminal misconduct, insubordination, or lack of cooperation.  Nejadpour explained that he had originally mailed the request for appeal hearing to Nohemi J. Ferguson, the outside counsel who had represented the DPW during Munroe’s Skelly hearing.  Ferguson never notified Nejadpour that the DPW rejected Munroe’s appeal or that Ferguson did not represent the Commission.  “It simply appeared that since . . . Ferguson represented the LACDPW then she should be the one that would receive the notice of appeal regarding my client’s wrongful termination.  Such timely notice was given to her.”  Nejadpour also explicated that the “alleged delay in forwarding the Notice of Appeal was caused by . . . Ferguson’s appearance to defend the legal rights of LACDPW and this office does not believe that such Mis-delivery has or could have prejudiced the commission in deciding on this matter.”  Nejadpour “kindly and respectfully request[ed] that the Commission [] consider this appeal even though it may appear to be untimely since the rights of my client are of significant value and compelling enough so that the Commission would exercise its discretion on this matter.”

            On March 13, 2007, the Chief of Commission Services at the Commission served a Notice of Civil Service Commission Agenda Item on Nejadpour and Munroe.  The notice informed Munroe that her matter would be considered at the Commission’s meeting of April 11, 2007, and that her presence was not required, although should she appear, she would be entitled to present her case.  While Nejadpour denies having received this notice, a proof of service was attached to it, and the trial court found that notice had been given.  Neither Munroe nor Nejadpour appeared at the April 11, 2007, Commission hearing.

            The Commission denied Munroe’s appeal request “based on untimely filing of the appeal.  (The decision in this matter was based on written materials submitted.  No one appeared for the Appellant.)”

            Munroe then filed a petition for writ of administrative mandate seeking to direct the Commission to hold an appeal hearing.  In the papers attached to the petition, Nejadpour declared that upon receiving the notice of discharge on November 9, 2006, Nejadpour asked Ferguson whether she would accept service of Munroe’s appeal on behalf of the DPW.  Ferguson reportedly agreed.  It is undisputed that Nejadpour understood that Ferguson represented the DPW not the Commission.  Also, Ferguson’s office indicated that Keisha Lakey was the appropriate party at the DPW to receive the notice of appeal and so Nejadpour also mailed the notice to Lakey.  Nejadpour did not send the notice of appeal to the Commission as indicated on the notice of appeal rights.  At some point, a Juan Mendoza notified Nejadpour that the notice of appeal sent to Ferguson’s office was insufficient and that another copy should be forwarded to Mendoza’s office.  That prompted Munroe’s January 29, 2007, request for appeal hearing.

            The trial court granted Munroe’s writ petition.  In its lengthy statement of decision, the trial court first found that the Commission’s “decision not to consider the appeal probably was not arbitrary, capricious or lacking in evidentiary support.  Munroe did not file a timely appeal.  Nor did she seek an extension from the [Commission] upon a showing of good cause.  [Civil Service, rule] 4.05(B).  Nor does it appear that Munroe may rely on Nejadpour’s discussion with Ferguson to estop the [Commission].  Ferguson did nothing more than accept service for DPW.  She did not, and could not, accept service for the [Commission].  Moreover, the Notice of Discharge plainly informed Nejadpour on where to send the notice of appeal.”  (Italics added.)

            Then the trial court reviewed the supplemental briefing it had requested and found that the Commission nonetheless abused its discretion in failing to deem Munroe’s late request for an appeal hearing to constitute good cause for an extension of time to file an appeal, pursuant to the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission Procedural Rules (2008 ed.), rule 4.05(B) (hereinafter Civil Service, rule).  The trial court agreed with Munroe that her March 12, 2006 letter provided good cause for her late filed appeal because it stated that Munroe sent her timely notice of appeal to the DPW’s counsel who never notified Munroe that she did not represent the Commission.  The court concluded that Munroe and her attorney “simply failed to read the filing instructions in the Notice of Discharge and make a timely petition for a hearing with [the Commission].  They then improperly served her notice of appeal on [the] DPW, without anyone from [the] DPW misleading Munroe in any way.”  “Given the preference under the law for a hearing on the merits, the [Commission] decision was an abuse of discretion.”  The DPW’s timely appeal followed.

CONTENTIONS

         The DPW contends that Munroe’s appeal request was very untimely.  Munroe never asked for an extension of time within which to file her request for a hearing based on good cause, and she failed to provide evidence of good cause for an extension of time because an attorney’s error in calculating deadlines is not excusable.

■ HELD:

Trial court's grant of plaintiff's petition for writ of mandate directing defendant to accept her late appeal is reversed where the Commission's original denial of plaintiff's appeal as untimely was not an abuse of discretion as it was not unlawful, lacking in evidentiary basis, arbitrary, or capricious.
Munroe v. L.A. County Civil Serv. Com. -B208003- 4/16/09 CA2/3
Munroe v. L.A. County Civil Serv. Com. -B208003- 4/16/09 CA2/3-PDF

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory       
Case Summaries Directory