The State Worker

Chronicling civil-service life for California state workers

April 14, 2009
Court files: Game warden sues State Personnel Board

scales_2.jpg

Court files introduce lawsuits of interest to state workers. We highlight the case, link you to the file and show you where to track developments on your own.

  • Click on the case number below to download the file. (19 pages)
  • Check for subsequent filings on the Sacramento Superior Court's document viewing page. Plug the case number into the appropriate field, click the search button and then scroll down to see a list of documents filed.
Case No.
34-2009-80000209

Filed: 04/02/2009

Petitioner: Alan Weingarten

Respondent: California State Personnel Board

Real Party in Interest: California Department of Fish and Game

Weingarten's attorneys argue that SPB acted "arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably, and in excess of its jurisdiction," when it upheld the Fish and Game warden's six month suspension.

The reasons for the suspension are summarized (and then explained in greater detail) in an SPB appeal decision from last year that is part of the court record:

Appellant is charged with an inexcusable neglect of duty, unlawful discrimination, discourteous treatment of other employees, and failure of good behavior which caused discredit to the appointing power for broadcasting a profane, discriminatory, and insulting comment over the Respondent's radio network about a female coworker, while he was engaged in an enforcement action, on September 9, 2006.


Appellant is also charged with unlawful discrimination, discourteous treatment of others, inexcusable neglect of duty, and failure of good behavior bringing discredit upon the appointing power for an incident on June 24, 2006. In that incident he left alcohol in the possession of minors, and transported a female minor who had been drinking alcohol to her vehicle and let her drive off without giving her a sobriety test. He did not notify dispatch that he was making the transport, did not include in his daily activity report that
he had made the transport, and, while making the transport, engaged in a mobile telephone conversation (loud enough for the female minor to hear) with a coworker in
which he told the coworker that he had a very pretty young woman who was wearing
nothing but a hot pink bikini in his truck with him. He then gave her the telephone and told her to talk to his coworker.

Weingarten's attorneys claim that SPB

... abused its discretion by imposing and sustaining such a severe and unconscionable punishment based upon Petitioner's conduct. ... abused its discretion because the proposed decision is not supported by the findings. ... abused its discretion in that Respondent has not proceeded in a manner required by law. ... has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably, and in excess of its jurisdiction and its conduct is not supported by fair and substantial reasons.

What does Weingarten want?

  1. That a peremptory writ of mandate issue setting aside and vacating the BOARD'S decision and remanding the matter to the BOARD for the imposition of a penalty consistent with the weight of the evidence;
  2. For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Government Code section 800;
  3. For costs of suit incurred herein;
  4. For such other and further relief the court deems just and proper.

The first four pages of the filing lay out Weingarten's petition to the court. The SPB decision on appealand details of the adverse action against Weingarten start at page 5. The last two pages document SPB's denial of Weingarten's rehearing request.

Was Weingarten's six-month suspension too severe?

About Comments

Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.

What You Should Know About Comments on Sacbee.com

Sacbee.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. (See our full terms of service here.)

Here are some rules of the road:

• Keep your comments civil. Don't insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the "report abuse" button to notify the moderators. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.

• Don't use profanities, vulgarities or hate speech. This is a general interest news site. Sometimes, there are children present. Don't say anything in a way you wouldn't want your own child to hear.

• Do not attack other users; focus your comments on issues, not individuals.

• Stay on topic. Only post comments relevant to the article at hand. If you want to discuss an issue with a specific user, click on his profile name and send him a direct message.

• Do not copy and paste outside material into the comment box.

• Don't repeat the same comment over and over. We heard you the first time.

• Do not use the commenting system for advertising. That's spam and it isn't allowed.

• Don't use all capital letters. That's akin to yelling and not appreciated by the audience.

You should also know that The Sacramento Bee does not screen comments before they are posted. You are more likely to see inappropriate comments before our staff does, so we ask that you click the "report abuse" button to submit those comments for moderator review. You also may notify us via email at feedback@sacbee.com. Note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us the profile name of the user who made the comment. Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa.

If you submit a comment, the user name of your account will appear along with it. Users cannot remove their own comments once they have submitted them, but you may ask our staff to retract one of your comments by sending an email to feedback@sacbee.com. Again, make sure you note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us your profile name.

hide comments
blog comments powered by Disqus


About The State Worker

Jon Ortiz The Author

Jon Ortiz launched The State Worker blog and a companion column in 2008 to cover state government from the perspective of California government employees. Every day he filters the news through a single question: "What does this mean for state workers?" Join Ortiz for updates and debate on state pay, benefits, pensions, contracts and jobs. Contact him at (916) 321-1043 and at jortiz@sacbee.com.

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK

Now on the State Worker column

    [an error occurred while processing this directive]

State Pay Database

This database allows you to search the salaries of California's 300,000-plus state workers and view up to four years of their pay history.

Latest Capitol Alert headlines

    404 - Not Found - The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, California

    404 Not Found

    Our apologies....

    We can't find the page you requested in this location.

    The story may have moved or expired.

    You may wish to:

  • » More on the Capitol Alert blog

Categories


May 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Monthly Archives