Armstrong v. BART
Filed 3/16/06 Armstrong v. BART CA1/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| RICHARD ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A109258 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. 2002-070480) |
Appellant Richard Armstrong formerly worked as a mainline technician for respondent San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). In December 2001, BART terminated Armstrong's employment as a disciplinary sanction for Armstrong's violation of BART's order that mainline technicians wear orange safety vests while on duty for security reasons, as well as related misconduct.
Armstrong's challenge to the termination of his employment was rejected by an administrative hearing officer, by a BART human resources committee, and by the Alameda County Superior Court. On this appeal, we reject Armstrong's contention that the inadequacy of the hearing officer's findings required the superior court to grant his petition for writ of mandate, and affirm the superior court's judgment that BART did not abuse its discretion in terminating Armstrong's employment.
facts[1] and procedural background
Armstrong started working for BART in 1987. During the 14 years prior to his termination, he had no record of discipline. As of December 2001, he had been working as a mainline technician for about three years.
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, BART management personnel participated in an international conference of transit agencies. At that conference, representatives of the transit agencies present discussed the idea that, in order to reassure the public and deter terrorist attacks, it would be helpful to have transit agency employees wear visible, distinctive safety vests while on duty in public locations within their respective transit systems. Accordingly, in the first week of October 2001, BART promulgated a directive (the orange vest directive) that all mainline technicians must wear their already-issued orange safety vests at all times while on duty, rather than only under certain circumstances as had previously been the case.
The orange vest directive met with a negative reaction from the mainline technicians, including Armstrong. During October 2001, BART manager Tamar Allen twice observed Armstrong violating the orange vest directive, and reminded him about the directive and the reasons behind it. On the second of these occasions, Allen warned Armstrong that further violations of the orange vest directive could result in discipline. On November 30, 2001, BART manager Kwok Chan issued a memo to all mainline technicians reiterating the orange vest directive and reminding them that any violation of BART policies â€
