 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Infante v. County of Los Angeles Civil Service Commission3/13/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Jaime Infante, a former deputy with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (the Department), appeals a judgment denying his petition for writ of administrative mandate to set aside respondents' decision to terminate Infante based upon gender-based harassment and other misconduct. Infante was dismissed for seven separate instances of misconduct which constituted violations of four Departmental Policies, namely No. 3-01/030.72 (Sexual Harassment and Retaliation), No. 3-01/030.15 (Conduct Towards Others), No. 3-01/40.75 (Making False Statements), and No. 3-01/030/73 (Hazing).
Infante requests that this court reverse the judgment and order the trial court to issue a writ of administrative mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 to set aside the discipline. He contends there is no evidence his conduct was gender-based because his behavior was directed equally at men and women, and that without a finding of gender-based conduct, at most his discipline would consist of a two-week suspension. We disagree and affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Infante became a deputy sheriff with the Department in 1996. At all relevant times several Departmental policies were in effect proscribing certain types of misconduct, as follows:
Policy No. 3-01/030.72, "Sexual Harassment and Retaliation," provided that " he Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is committed to providing a work environment in which all individuals are treated with respect and dignity, free of discrimination. Every individual has the right to work in a professional atmosphere which promotes equal opportunities and prohibits discriminatory practices, including sexual harassment and retaliation for complaining about it." Sexual harassment and retaliation were against the policy of the Department because they "demean others; undermine the integrity of working relationships; and prevent the Department from carrying out its mission. . . . Sexual harassment and retaliation also can harm the target, observers, work groups, Department, and the public's perception not only of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department but of law enforcement in general." Further, sexual harassment and retaliation could subject the Department to serious legal liability.
The Policy manual described sexual harassment as " onduct of a sexual nature (conduct relating to sex or gender) that is nwelcome or unwanted by the recipient or observer; and is either, o persistent, egregious, or pervasive that it significantly alters an employee's working environment or creates a hostile, abusive environment; or, t is quid pro quo (`this for that') - that is, the harasser seeks sexual favors or submission to the conduct in exchange for job continuation or benefits."
The Policy manual described gender harassment as a form of sexual harassment and noted that it consisted of, in relevant part, " ender-related epithets, slurs, negative stereotyping, derogatory comments or insulting remarks, hysical conduct such as hostile touching, grabbing, slapping, impeding or blocking movement, staring, practical jokes or pranks because of, or that relate to, gender." Policy No. 3-01/030.70, "Discrimination/Harassment by Department Employees" stated the Department's policy of providing a harassment free environment, and that gender h
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|