In a significant legal battle involving labor relations and disciplinary policies, the County of Los Angeles has found itself at odds with its own Sheriff's Department and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS). The complaint was filed by the County of Los Angeles in the Superior Court of Los Angeles on July 2, 2024, against the Los Angeles County Employee Relations Commission (ERCOM).
The crux of the case revolves around changes made by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD) to its disciplinary guidelines in 2013 and 2016. ALADS, representing approximately 7,900 LASD deputies, objected to these changes and filed complaints with ERCOM. ERCOM subsequently ordered LASD to rescind these changes and roll back any discipline imposed under them. The County then petitioned the superior court for a writ of mandate directing ERCOM to vacate its decision.
The trial court's judgment was mixed: it concluded that LASD must rescind the 2013 and 2016 changes but directed only a partial rollback of the discipline imposed under them. Both the County and ALADS cross-appealed from this judgment. The appeals court ultimately affirmed that ERCOM properly ordered the rescission of the 2013 and 2016 changes but deemed its complete rollback of discipline overbroad.
According to California's Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA), public employers are obligated to meet and confer with recognized employee representative organizations regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Despite this obligation, LASD unilaterally implemented changes to its Guidelines for Discipline Handbook without negotiating with ALADS. These changes were prompted by recommendations from various oversight bodies including a Citizens’ Commission on Jail Violence formed in response to public concern about deputy violence in county jails.
ALADS contended that these unilateral changes violated their rights under MMBA as they significantly affected working conditions without proper negotiation. For instance, penalties for violations such as failure to report use of force or making false statements were increased without union input. In response, ERCOM held hearings and concluded that LASD had indeed violated rules requiring negotiation before implementing such policy changes.
ERCOM’s initial remedy included ordering LASD to rescind the guideline changes, conform any discipline imposed under them to pre-2013 standards, make affected employees whole, change all employee records accordingly, and post notices about ERCOM’s decision. However, upon further review by both ERCOM and the courts, it was determined that some aspects of this remedy were too broad.
Specifically, ERCOM’s authority does not extend to overturning final decisions made by other administrative bodies like the Civil Service Commission or affecting settlement agreements between individual deputies and LASD. Moreover, while ERCOM can direct corrective actions within its jurisdictional limits, it cannot intrude upon LASD’s discretion in imposing discipline according to established guidelines.
The attorneys involved in this complex case include Brian P. Ross and Jacob A. Kalinski from Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver representing ALADS; Mira Hashmall, Eleanor Ruth, and Lauren M. Brody from Miller Barondess representing the County; with Judge James C. Chalfant presiding over proceedings in Superior Court Case No. 20STCP3034.