BILL ANALYSIS �
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 2032|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 2032
Author: Bonta (D)
Amended: 8/4/14
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC EMPLOY. & RETIRE. COMM. : 3-2, 6/9/14
AYES: Torres, Block, Evans
NOES: Walters, Gaines
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 59-16, 4/10/14 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Civil service: employee hearings
SOURCE : California Association of Highway Patrolmen
CDF Firefighters
DIGEST : This bill requires the burden of proof to sustain a
disciplinary action, rather than switching to the appellant
employee, to remain with the state employing agency in court
proceedings for a writ of mandate brought in superior court if
the State Personnel Board (SPB) has failed to render a decision
in the administrative hearing process within existing
statutorily required timeframes.
Senate Floor Amendments of 8/4/14 change an erroneous statutory
reference.
CONTINUED
AB 2032
Page
2
CONTINUED
AB 2032
Page
3
ANALYSIS :
Existing law:
1.Establishes the SPB which is responsible for administering a
merit system of civil service employment within California
state government, and establishes administrative procedures
and time frames to resolve appeals of alleged violations of
civil service laws and rules.
2.Provides procedures whereby an employee may appeal a
disciplinary action or termination by an employer. In such
proceedings, the employer bears the burden of proof that the
disciplinary action or termination was appropriate.
3.Authorizes a state employee to make a written request for a
priority hearing by SPB for an appeal of a disciplinary action
that resulted in the employee's termination if an evidentiary
hearing has not commenced within six months of the filing of
the appeal.
4.Allows a state employee, when SPB has failed to render a
timely decision, to file a writ of mandate in superior court
to overturn the disciplinary action or termination; however,
when the employee files the writ of mandate, the burden of
proof shifts to the employee to prove that the employer acted
improperly in performing the disciplinary action or dismissal.
This bill requires the burden of proof, if SPB fails to act
within specified statutorily required timeframes to render a
decision in an investigation or evidentiary hearing of a
disciplinary action resulting in termination against a state
employee, to remain with the state employer in proceedings for a
writ of mandate brought by the employee in superior court to
appeal the termination.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local:
No
SUPPORT : (Verified 7/1/14--Unable to reverify at time of
writing)
California Association of Highway Patrolmen (co-source)
CDF Firefighters (co-source)
CONTINUED
AB 2032
Page
4
AFSCME, AFL-CIO
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
California Professional Firefighters
California School Employees Association, AFL-CIO
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association
SEIU
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the California Association
of Highway Patrolmen, a co-sponsor of the bill:
When an employee is dismissed from state service, the SPB
is required to render a decision within six months from the
filing of an appeal. During these proceedings, the burden
of proof falls on the employing agency. However, if the
SPB fails to act within the allotted six months, the
employee may file a petition in superior court. Under
these circumstances, the burden of proof then switches from
the employing agency to the employee, which forces the
employee to prove that the action was unwarranted.
Reversing the burden of proof when the SPB fails to act in
a timely manner unfairly penalizes the employee and
violates their fundamental due process rights guaranteed by
Skelly v. SPB. (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 194. AB 2032 modifies
this unjust process and keeps the burden of proof on the
employing agency, if the case goes to court, and if the SPB
fails to act within its statutory timeframe.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 59-16, 4/10/14
AYES: Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bigelow, Bloom, Bocanegra,
Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Brown, Buchanan, Ian Calderon,
Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Cooley, Dababneh, Daly, Dickinson,
Eggman, Fong, Fox, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Garcia, Gatto, Gomez,
Gonzalez, Gordon, Gorell, Gray, Hall, Roger Hern�ndez, Holden,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lowenthal, Medina, Mullin,
Muratsuchi, Nazarian, Nestande, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez,
Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Skinner,
Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada, John A.
P�rez
NOES: Conway, Dahle, Donnelly, Grove, Hagman, Harkey, Jones,
Logue, Maienschein, Mansoor, Melendez, Olsen, Patterson,
Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Allen, Ch�vez, Salas, Vacancy
CONTINUED
AB 2032
Page
5
JL:e 8/6/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED