Stanislaus Deputies’ Association President Reinstated, Effects Change

Posted by William P. Creger

In July 2011, Sheriff Adam Christianson told Soria he was to be transferred from his position in Investigations, which carries a 2.5% pay premium, to Patrol. In the memorandum announcing the transfer, the sheriff maintained he had sole discretion in transferring Soria and the transfer was not subject to appeal. Christianson directed Soria to close or transfer his cases to another detective.

Soria’s transfer fell into a pattern of retaliatory transfers out of special assignments that had been practiced for years in the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department. The Deputies’ Association had evidence the sheriff and his administration had retaliated against other vocal association members by transferring them out of specialty assignments. The Association Board was concerned such retaliation could chill the activities of the SSDA and hinder its purposes.

Association Files Grievance and Tort Claim Over Retaliatory Transfer

We filed a grievance and a public entity claim, which is a precursor to a lawsuit, to challenge the transfer. While the SSDA was willing to file a lawsuit over the sheriff’s conduct if necessary, the Board was confident cooler heads would prevail once the County became aware of the issue.

We argued Soria’s transfer violated the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act and White v. County of Sacramento (1982) 31 Cal.3d 676 because the department did not provide Soria with an administrative hearing to challenge the loss in pay. Under White, any transfer involving a loss in pay is deemed punitive for purposes of affording the officer the opportunity for an administrative appeal. In this case, Soria was set to lose a 2.5%-pay premium, yet he was not provided a hearing.

We also challenged Soria’s transfer as a violation of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act because he was retaliated against based on his lawful union activity. We argued the transfer was in violation of a provision in the MOU as well as a past practice of assigning deputies to the Investigations Unit for a seven-year term.

In the memorandum announcing Soria’s transfer, Sheriff Christianson claimed he was merely following the terms of the MOU by making Soria’s transfer effective on the detective’s anniversary date. We established, however, no deputy aside from Soria had been transferred out of the Investigations Unit before the expiration of the customary seven-year assignment.

County Agrees to Settle Grievance and Reinstate Soria

Sheriff Christianson responded to the grievance by denying there was cause for one. He denied Soria was entitled to a White hearing and, predictably, denied the transfer was in retaliation for Soria’s union activity. Christianson asserted the transfer was to “offer career development opportunities to others …”

At the Board’s direction, we attempted to remedy the transfer without involving the association in lengthy and costly litigation. The County’s Chief Executive Officer eventually acknowledged the County’s obligation to give Soria and other members of the SSDA a “White hearing” for any transfer involving a loss of pay. The County and the SSDA have since met and agreed on a White hearing policy. The policy provides for an exchange of information (discovery) and for the cross-examination of witnesses. In the future, every member of the SSDA will have the benefit of this new policy and will have a vehicle for challenging many transfers.

Following an additional investigation by the county, the County and the Sheriff’s Department agreed to resolve the grievance by reinstating Soria to the Investigations Unit and paying him back pay for the time he had been transferred out of the unit.

About the Author

Will Creger is an associate attorney with Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller & Johnsen. He represents the Stanislaus Sworn Deputies’ Association.