Woodford v. Cal.State Personnel Bd.

Filed 1/23/07  Woodford v. Cal. State Personnel Bd. CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

            APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County.  Gloria Trask, Judge.  Affirmed.

            Law Offices of Wendell J. Llopis and Wendell J. Llopis for Real Party in Interest and Appellant Pamela Waters.

            Debra L. Ashbrook, Assistant Chief Counsel, and Stephen A. Jennings, Staff Counsel III, for Plaintiff and Respondent Jeanne Woodford as Director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

            No appearance for Defendant and Respondent California State Personnel Board.

I.  INTRODUCTION

            Pamela Waters (Waters) appeals from the judgment granting a petition for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) sought by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department^[1]), acting through its Director, Jeanne Woodford, to overturn a final decision of the California State Personnel Board (the Board).  The trial court held that the Board erred as a matter of law when it dismissed, as defective, an adverse action imposed upon Waters for lack of proper service.  The Board had found that procedural compliance with the applicable service statute is a prerequisite to taking an adverse action against a state employee.  The trial court disagreed, finding that because Waters received actual notice of the adverse action, filed an appeal with the Board to challenge the imposed adverse action, and appeared before the Board, the Board could no longer dismiss the adverse action for lack of procedural compliance with the service statute.  Thus, the trial court ordered reinstatement of the adverse action against Waters.

            Pursuant to the state Civil Service Act (Gov. Code,^[2] §§  18500 et seq.), section 19574, subdivision (a) provides that an appointing authority may impose an adverse action upon a state employee, but the imposed adverse action is valid only if written notice of the adverse action is served on the employee prior to its effective date.  Section 18575 prescribes the manner by which notice of an adverse action is to be served upon a state employee.

            On appeal, we are asked to determine whether the Board can dismiss an adverse action imposed upon a state employee whose service by mail technically failed to comply with section 18575, when such state employee appeals the imposed adverse action to the Board and appears before the Board regarding such action.

II.  PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND AND FACTS

            Waters is an employee of the Department.  On August 28, 2002, the Department mailed to her a written Notice of Adverse Action.  The notice permanently demoted her from the civil service classification of Correctional Sergeant to the civil service classification of Correctional Officer.  Because the notice was mailed to Waters's former address, it was forwarded by the U.  S. Postal Service to her new address via â€