Filed 8/25/22 Cole v. City of L.A. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE ONICA COLE, B304028 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 19STCP00802) CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed. Castillo Harper, Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, Michael A. Morguess for Plaintiff and Appellant. Michael N. Feuer, City Attorney, Vivienne A. Swanigan, Assistant City Attorney, and Jennifer Gregg, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiff and appellant Onica Valle Cole (Cole), a prosecutor in the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office (the Office), wanted to volunteer as a temporary judge (sometimes called a judge pro tem). She initially obtained the Office’s approval do so, but a supervisor later denied her request to renew that approval because she was then on a reduced 30-hour-per-week work schedule. Though her request was denied, Cole continued to work as a temporary judge anyway. The Office terminated Cole for insubordination and other behavior, and she responded by challenging the termination via an administrative mandamus petition. The trial court upheld Cole’s termination. We are asked to decide (1) whether the termination must be reversed because the Office did not offer an opportunity to administratively appeal her supervisor’s denial of her request to work as a temporary judge, (2) whether she was terminated not for insubordination but for discriminatory reasons (i.e., because of her medical condition), and (3) whether termination was too severe a punishment. I. BACKGROUND A. Pertinent Policies 1. The memorandum of understanding During the relevant time period (specifically from July 1, 2016, through June 30, 2019), attorneys employed by the Office were covered by a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that included a grievance procedure. The MOU defined a grievance as “a dispute concerning . . . departmental rules and regulations governing personnel practices or working conditions . . . .” The MOU outlines a four-step grievance process. An employee is responsible for initiating an informal discussion of the issue with 2 her immediate supervisors, and then for serving a grievance initiation form that triggers a management review if the issue is not resolved. If the grievance is not resolved following management review, the employee may pursue a written appeal to the City Attorney. And if that does not resolve the issue, the Los Angeles City Attorneys Association, which represents attorney employees, may make a written request for arbitration. 2. The outside employment memorandum In January 2016, the City Attorney’s Chief of Staff, Leela Kapur (Kapur), distributed a memorandum advising employees they were required to obtain written …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals