Guisto v. City of San Mateo
Filed 3/30/06 Guisto v. City of San Mateo CA1/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| ANTONIO GIUSTO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF SAN MATEO et al., Defendants and Appellants. | A109567 (San Mateo County Super. Ct. No. 441503) |
Defendants City of San Mateo, City of San Mateo Police Department and Chief of Police Susan E. Manheimer (collectively, the City) were ordered by a peremptory writ of mandate to pay plaintiff Antonio Giusto back pay for a seven-month period of unpaid administrative leave, and to credit him for accrued vacation and other personal leave time he expended during that period.[1] They appeal. The trial court found the City failed to satisfy due process requirements before placing Giusto, a permanent employee, on unpaid administrative leave. We agree, and affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The City hired Giusto as a police officer on April 20, 1989. Giusto was promoted to police sergeant in December 1998. For both positions, he satisfactorily completed a probationary period and, thus, attained permanent employee status.
In January 2003, Giusto filed a worker's compensation claim on the basis of stress and depression following a non-disciplinary counseling session with his supervisor. The City, as a result, placed Giusto on paid administrative leave pending a fitness-for-duty evaluation. On January 17, 2003, psychiatrist Norman Reynolds, M.D., evaluated Giusto and found him â€
