Skelly hearing in California

2026As discussed, post, the 2019 Decision would later be set aside, and a new hearing 2 “A Skelly hearing is an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges in the notice of adverse action.” (Benefield v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 469, 472, fn. 6 , citing Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 206 (Skelly) and other case law.) 3. and decision would follow.

2026As discussed, post, the 2019 Decision would later be set aside, and a new hearing 2 “A Skelly hearing is an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges in the notice of adverse action.” (Benefield v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 469, 472, fn. 6 , citing Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 206 (Skelly) and other case law.) 3. and decision would follow.

2026The ALJ did not find this to be true. “ ‘The substantial evidence standard of review takes on a unique formulation where, as here, “the trier of fact has expressly or implicitly concluded that the party with the burden of proof did not carry the burden and that party appeals.” ’ [Citation.] Under these circumstances, ‘ “ ‘ “the question for a reviewing court becomes whether the evidence compels a finding in favor of the appellant as a matter of law. [Citations.] Specifically, the question becomes whether the appellant’s evidence was (1) ‘uncontradicted and unimpeached’ and (2) ‘of such a chara

2025Rejecting Riggs’s contention that reinstatement was the proper remedy for the Skelly violation, the court awarded her back pay and benefits from January 21, 2022 to May 18, 2022—when the Chief of Police signed the final order executing the Board’s recommendation that Riggs “be removed from her position as sergeant, with total loss of pay, effective 01/21/2022.” In Barber v. State Personnel Board (1976) 18 Cal.3d 395, 402 (Barber), our high court held the remedy for a Skelly violation “is to award back pay for the period of wrongful discipline.” (See also Economy v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals (2

2026As discussed, post, the 2019 Decision would later be set aside, and a new hearing 2 “A Skelly hearing is an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges in the notice of adverse action.” (Benefield v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 469, 472, fn. 6 , citing Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 206 (Skelly) and other case law.) 3. and decision would follow.

2026As discussed, post, the 2019 Decision would later be set aside, and a new hearing 2 “A Skelly hearing is an opportunity for the employee to respond to the charges in the notice of adverse action.” (Benefield v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 469, 472, fn. 6 , citing Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 206 (Skelly) and other case law.) 3. and decision would follow.

2022(See Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, 709 [Labor Code “Section 1102.5 provides whistleblower protections to employees who disclose wrongdoing to authorities”].) 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.’ [Citation.] The Supreme Court’s directive gave rise to an administrative procedure known as a Skelly hearing, in which an employee has the opportunity to respond to the charges upon which the

2022(See Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, 709 [Labor Code “Section 1102.5 provides whistleblower protections to employees who disclose wrongdoing to authorities”].) 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.’ [Citation.] The Supreme Court’s directive gave rise to an administrative procedure known as a Skelly hearing, in which an employee has the opportunity to respond to the charges upon which the

2015Remington’s understanding is consistent with case law holding that implied in the Skelly “right to respond” is a right to respond “before a reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer.” (Williams v. County of Los Angeles (1978) 22 Cal.3d 731, 736-737 .) In this case, McCoy-Miller, a manager from the County Department of Children and Family Services, served as the Skelly hearing officer and decided to recommend demotion.

2015Remington’s understanding is consistent with case law holding that implied in the Skelly “right to respond” is a right to respond “before a reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer.” (Williams v. County of Los Angeles (1978) 22 Cal.3d 731, 736-737 .) In this case, McCoy-Miller, a manager from the County Department of Children and Family Services, served as the Skelly hearing officer and decided to recommend demotion.

2023Loudermill (1985) 470 U.S. 532, 546 .) An employer complies with Skelly when it provides the employee with statements of witnesses, documents, and investigative reports or extracts therefrom. ( Gilbert, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1275–1276, 1280.) The employee has “ ‘ the right to be informed not only of the nature of the charges but also of the substance of the relevant supporting evidence.’ ” (Id. at p. 1278; see also Ferguson v. City of Cathedral City (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1170 [holding no Skelly violation where employee received “notice of the proposed discharge, the reasons, a c

2023It cites Gilbert, supra, for the proposition that Sahakyan bore the burden in this writ proceeding of showing that the materials received prior to his Skelly hearing were insufficient to provide him an “opportunity to meaningfully respond at the pretermination stage.” (Gilbert, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at p. 1281 .) The City also points to Sahakyan’s Shelly response, and the fact that he had “access to the arrest report” and was present at the criminal court proceedings, to argue that Sahakyan understood the conduct upon which the off-duty misconduct charge was based.

2026Personnel Com., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1133 ; see Barber v. State Personnel Bd. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 500, 513 [“‘“‘The appropriate standard for the measurement of a back pay award is to take the difference between the actual wages earned and the wages the individual would have earned in the position that, but for the [employer’s wrongful conduct], the individual would have [held].’”’”].) The Department’s decision to discharge Jackson caused him loss of earnings from the effective date of the discharge; the Skelly violation in connection with Jackson’s suspension did not cause that loss.

2026Personnel Com., supra, 152 Cal.App.4th at p. 1133 ; see Barber v. State Personnel Bd. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 500, 513 [“‘“‘The appropriate standard for the measurement of a back pay award is to take the difference between the actual wages earned and the wages the individual would have earned in the position that, but for the [employer’s wrongful conduct], the individual would have [held].’”’”].) The Department’s decision to discharge Jackson caused him loss of earnings from the effective date of the discharge; the Skelly violation in connection with Jackson’s suspension did not cause that loss.

2026Analogizing his case to Roe, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th 1029 , Jackson argues remedies for a Skelly violation “are not extinguished by employee actions taken while the violation remains uncured.” Roe, however, is distinguishable.

2026Analogizing his case to Roe, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th 1029 , Jackson argues remedies for a Skelly violation “are not extinguished by employee actions taken while the violation remains uncured.” Roe, however, is distinguishable.

2026(See Kempland v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 644, 651 [employee discharged without due process was entitled to back pay “less interim wages earned”].) Of course, if there were a Skelly violation in connection with the discharge (and we express no opinion on that possibility), Jackson might be entitled to additional days of back pay until that violation was cured.

2026(See Kempland v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 644, 651 [employee discharged without due process was entitled to back pay “less interim wages earned”].) Of course, if there were a Skelly violation in connection with the discharge (and we express no opinion on that possibility), Jackson might be entitled to additional days of back pay until that violation was cured.

2018"It was established long ago that ignorance of the law does not excuse one from the consequences of the law." ( Arthur Andersen v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1481 , 1506, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 879 [collecting authority].) III Predismissal Procedure Fisher tenders an argument under the heading, "The SPB Decision failed to address the Skelly violation." The gravamen of Fisher's argument is unclear.

2018"It was established long ago that ignorance of the law does not excuse one from the consequences of the law." ( Arthur Andersen v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1481 , 1506, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 879 [collecting authority].) III Predismissal Procedure Fisher tenders an argument under the heading, "The SPB Decision failed to address the Skelly violation." The gravamen of Fisher's argument is unclear.

2026Personnel Com. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1133 [employee’s “unavailability for work due to his nonindustrial illness justified the . . . denial of full back pay” because, “[e]ven if [his employer] had not wrongfully demoted him, [he] would not have appeared for work because of his illness,” which was “unrelated to his demotion and employment”].) Jackson lost 10 days of wages as a result of the Skelly violation, but no more.

2026Personnel Com. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1122, 1133 [employee’s “unavailability for work due to his nonindustrial illness justified the . . . denial of full back pay” because, “[e]ven if [his employer] had not wrongfully demoted him, [he] would not have appeared for work because of his illness,” which was “unrelated to his demotion and employment”].) Jackson lost 10 days of wages as a result of the Skelly violation, but no more.

2026(See Bedard v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 442 , 460 [“Barber established that the only remedy for the violation of an employee’s due process is back pay when her discharge is justified.”]; Williams v. City of Los Angeles 19 (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1217 [“the proper remedy for a Skelly violation is an award of back pay for the period described in Barber, rather than reinstatement”].) Regarding Jackson’s second argument, the proper back pay award, as discussed, was 10 days, not more.

2026(See Bedard v. City of Los Angeles (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 442 , 460 [“Barber established that the only remedy for the violation of an employee’s due process is back pay when her discharge is justified.”]; Williams v. City of Los Angeles 19 (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1217 [“the proper remedy for a Skelly violation is an award of back pay for the period described in Barber, rather than reinstatement”].) Regarding Jackson’s second argument, the proper back pay award, as discussed, was 10 days, not more.

2025(See Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 800-801, fn. 11 .) Thus, if there is a conflict between the IPA and the due process clause, the due process clause prevails. 25 That leaves just one potential issue.

2025(See Delaney v. Superior Court (1990) 50 Cal.3d 785, 800-801, fn. 11 .) Thus, if there is a conflict between the IPA and the due process clause, the due process clause prevails. 25 That leaves just one potential issue.

2025Rejecting Riggs’s contention that reinstatement was the proper remedy for the Skelly violation, the court awarded her back pay and benefits from January 21, 2022 to May 18, 2022—when the Chief of Police signed the final order executing the Board’s recommendation that Riggs “be removed from her position as sergeant, with total loss of pay, effective 01/21/2022.” In Barber v. State Personnel Board (1976) 18 Cal.3d 395, 402 (Barber), our high court held the remedy for a Skelly violation “is to award back pay for the period of wrongful discipline.” (See also Economy v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals (2

2025Rejecting Riggs’s contention that reinstatement was the proper remedy for the Skelly violation, the court awarded her back pay and benefits from January 21, 2022 to May 18, 2022—when the Chief of Police signed the final order executing the Board’s recommendation that Riggs “be removed from her position as sergeant, with total loss of pay, effective 01/21/2022.” In Barber v. State Personnel Board (1976) 18 Cal.3d 395, 402 (Barber), our high court held the remedy for a Skelly violation “is to award back pay for the period of wrongful discipline.” (See also Economy v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals (2

2024(Mendoza v. Regents of University of California (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 168, 172 [a civil employee may be deprived of his or her property interest in employment “only if, prior to his [or her] dismissal, certain procedural safeguards are observed”].) But a Skelly hearing is not required if there has not been a deprivation or an issued intent to take an adverse action.

2024(Mendoza v. Regents of University of California (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 168, 172 [a civil employee may be deprived of his or her property interest in employment “only if, prior to his [or her] dismissal, certain procedural safeguards are observed”].) But a Skelly hearing is not required if there has not been a deprivation or an issued intent to take an adverse action.

2024(Coleman v. Regents of University of California, supra, 93 Cal.App.3d at p. 526 [“the opportunity to respond must come after the notice of intention to dismiss”].) LaMarr provides no legal support for the proposition underlying her argument that employees are afforded due process as soon as an employer considers an adverse action; this would dramatically expand Skelly.

2024(Coleman v. Regents of University of California, supra, 93 Cal.App.3d at p. 526 [“the opportunity to respond must come after the notice of intention to dismiss”].) LaMarr provides no legal support for the proposition underlying her argument that employees are afforded due process as soon as an employer considers an adverse action; this would dramatically expand Skelly.

2023Loudermill (1985) 470 U.S. 532, 546 .) An employer complies with Skelly when it provides the employee with statements of witnesses, documents, and investigative reports or extracts therefrom. ( Gilbert, supra, 130 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1275–1276, 1280.) The employee has “ ‘ the right to be informed not only of the nature of the charges but also of the substance of the relevant supporting evidence.’ ” (Id. at p. 1278; see also Ferguson v. City of Cathedral City (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1161, 1170 [holding no Skelly violation where employee received “notice of the proposed discharge, the reasons, a c

2022(See Brown, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 1164, fn. 4 [noting that section 19575.5 authorizes “amendment of the charging document only prior to the submission of the appeal for decision by the board”].) In other words, if an employee did not receive notice that the proposed penalty could be imposed based on the facts that were found true after the evidentiary hearing, then the Skelly factors do not even come into play.

2022(See Brown, supra, 166 Cal.App.3d at p. 1164, fn. 4 [noting that section 19575.5 authorizes “amendment of the charging document only prior to the submission of the appeal for decision by the board”].) In other words, if an employee did not receive notice that the proposed penalty could be imposed based on the facts that were found true after the evidentiary hearing, then the Skelly factors do not even come into play.

2022(See Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, 709 [Labor Code “Section 1102.5 provides whistleblower protections to employees who disclose wrongdoing to authorities”].) 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.’ [Citation.] The Supreme Court’s directive gave rise to an administrative procedure known as a Skelly hearing, in which an employee has the opportunity to respond to the charges upon which the

2022(See Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, 709 [Labor Code “Section 1102.5 provides whistleblower protections to employees who disclose wrongdoing to authorities”].) 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.’ [Citation.] The Supreme Court’s directive gave rise to an administrative procedure known as a Skelly hearing, in which an employee has the opportunity to respond to the charges upon which the