No Administrative Appeal Right After Police Officers Transferred To Another Assignment.

LAPD robbery/homicide lieutenant, with 23 years of experience on the force, was counseled for a lack of supervisory skills. When the situation did not improve, it was determined that either the lieutenant had to make significant changes to interpersonal skills, or a significant number of subordinates would leave the section. Retaining rank and pay, the lieutenant was transferred. However, in the new assignment the lieutenant did not receive as much overtime and did not enjoy the use of a department vehicle. Another officer, a detective for 25 years, was administratively charged with creating a hostile work environment and making inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature. The detective was temporarily relieved of duty, and was later officially reprimanded and restored to the position of detective. But the detective was later relieved again when another complaint was lodged. The detective was transferred to another division, but was restricted from carrying a gun. Both the lieutenant and the detective, for themselves and for all officers belonging to their association, filed a petition for writ of mandate and a complaint for declaratory relief. They claimed their transfers were punitive and that they were entitled to an administrative appeal hearing. The trial court denied them relief after concluding the transfers were imposed for purposes other than punishment and would not lead to adverse employment consequences. In affirming the trial court, the appellate court stated: “In this case we hold that the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA) (Government Code section 3300, et seq.) does not afford officers the right to an administrative appeal of a transfer of assignment, which does not affect compensation or other specified rights, solely because the transfer may lead to negative employment consequences, or upon the officer’s belief to that effect. Instead, as the statute specifically requires, the transfer must be ‘for purposes of punishment.’” (Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 4; December 9, 2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 136, [181 Cal.Rptr.3d 204].)