In the case of Rodgers v. State Personnel Board, a correctional sergeant faced a notice of adverse action (NOAA), which resulted in a 10% salary reduction for two years. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation accused him of grave misconduct, including neglect of duty, discourteous treatment of subordinates, and misuse of authority.
Upon appeal, an administrative law judge ruled that while certain allegations were not proven, the correctional sergeant’s angry confrontation and use of profanity towards subordinates did violate department policies regarding respectful behavior. The State Personnel Board adopted this decision.
However, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Division Two, reversed this judgment. The court stated that the facts presented in the NOAA differed significantly from the findings of the administrative law judge. The NOAA alleged severe misconduct involving a cover-up and fostering corruption, while the judge’s findings focused on the sergeant’s failure to control his temper and treat subordinates respectfully during a confrontation.
As a result of this discrepancy, the appellate court directed the State Personnel Board to overturn its decision that upheld the department’s disciplinary action against the sergeant. This case underscores the importance of maintaining consistency between allegations and findings in matters involving employee misconduct.
Lessons learned from the case:
- Wage reductions can occur and be justified for various reasons including misconduct, employees should be aware of such actions and their consequences.
- Employers should meticulously document misconduct and ensure consistency throughout the disciplinary process.
- Employees are entitled to fair notice and an opportunity to respond to specific charges.
If you want to know more about salaried employee rights, read our guide on What are my rights as a salaried employee in California?
