Court of Appeal Rules in Favor of Terminated Placentia Officer

On May 19, 2000, the Court of Appeal for the State of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, issued its opinion upholding a Writ Judgment from the Orange County Superior Court compelling the reinstatement of a former Placentia police officer. The appellate ruling in Mebane v. City of Placentia, et al. affirmed a Peremptory Writ of Mandate in favor of former Placentia Police Officer Michael Mebane, issued October 27, 1999, by the Orange County Superior Court.

Said Writ commanded the City of Placentia to immediately restore Mebane to his position as a police officer with Placentia and to deliver to Mebane all lost pay, compensation, and benefits, together with interest thereon from the date of his termination in November 1997. Throughout the litigation, Mebane was represented by Joseph Straka, of The Petersen Law Firm located in Costa Mesa, California.

In January 1996, Mebane was hired as an entry-level police officer by the City of Placentia. At the time of his hiring, the city informed Mebane that he was subject to an 18-month probationary period. Mebane performed his duties in a satisfactory manner and received positive evaluations.

Approximately 15 months after being hired, the Placentia Police Department commenced an internal investigation of Mebane for an alleged violation of department rules. Mebane continued to perform his duties as a police officer for the city.

On July 29, 1997, 18 months and 1 day after Mebane was hired by Placentia, he received a telephone message on his home answering machine from a lieutenant with the Placentia Police Department.

The message instructed Mebane to check his voice mail at the police station. Upon doing so, Mebane heard a message from the lieutenant stating that Mebane’s probationary period had been extended indefinitely. Mebane continued his normal duties as a police officer.

On or about August 16, 1997, Mebane was given a performance evaluation, purportedly covering the period of January 29, 1996, to July 29, 1997. In an addendum to the evaluation authored by the same lieutenant who left the phone message, the department purported to extend Mebane’s probationary period for an indefinite amount of time.

On November 12, 1997, approximately 21 ½ months after being hired, Mebane was terminated. The Notice of Termination informed Mebane that he was being terminated for failing to meet probationary standards.

On April 23, 1999, Mebane filed his Verified Writ of Mandate in the Orange County Superior Court. Mebane set forth multiple theories as to why he could not, after being employed for over 21 months by the city, be subject to a probationary termination.

His multiple theories revolved around two main premises: (1) that section 2.24.080 of the Placentia Municipal Code established only a six-month probationary period for police employees; and (2) that even if the City was correct and an 18-month probationary period was applicable, the city failed to effectively terminate Mebane under its own personnel rules prior to his obtaining permanent status.

The city answered Mebane’s Writ, relying on the affirmative defense of laches (i.e., that Mebane had waited too long from his termination to file his Writ) and that Placentia Personnel Rule IX provided for an 18-month probationary period. The city ignored Mebane’s alternative theories relative to the city’s failure to properly terminate him even assuming the 18-month probationary period.

On November 1, 1999, judgment on the Peremptory Writ was granted in favor of Mebane. The Orange County Superior Court found that Mebane was subject to a six-month probationary period and not that of an 18-month probationary period, as the city had been assessing against all its newly hired officers. The city appealed the judgment.

In the meantime, instead of maintaining the status quo, or reinstating Mebane and paying him the accrued back pay as ordered in the Writ, the city initiated new termination proceedings against him.

Mebane was forced to first seek an Injunction from the Orange County Superior Court, and then a Writ of Supersedeas with the Appellate Court, in order to stop the termination proceedings until the Court of Appeal ruled on the city’s appeal. Mebane was successful in getting the city to stop the second termination proceedings until the outcome of the city’s appeal on the Writ.

On May 19, 2000, the Court of Appeal issued its opinion upholding the Writ judgment. Although the Court of Appeal differed with the Superior Court as to why the Writ should have been granted, it felt that the Superior Court had come to the correct conclusion in ordering Mebane reinstated.

The Court of Appeal found that an 18-month probationary period was applicable to Mebane, but that the city had failed to follow its own rules for properly terminating a probationary employee and, thus, Mebane had gained de facto status as a permanent employee. This was one of Mebane’s alternative arguments.

As a permanent employee, Mebane could only be terminated for just cause. If the city intends on terminating Mebane, it must do so for cause and not as a probationary employee.