STEEN v. BOARD OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONERS OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES (1944)

Petitioner has appealed from an order of the superior court denying without prejudice a petition for a writ of review in which he asked to be reinstated as a civil service employee of the Department of Water and Power of the City of Los Angeles. The superior court held that the petition failed to state a cause of action for the reason that it appears therefrom that petitioner's demand for reinstatement was not filed within the time required by the city charter.

Petitioner alleged that on August 17, 1943, the general manager of the Department of Water and Power served upon him and filed with the Board of Civil Service Commissioners a statement of charges against him and a notice of his discharge. Petitioner had been an employee of the City of Los Angeles in the classified civil service for more than twenty-years. On August 18, 1943, petitioner filed with the Board of Civil Service Commissioners a written application for a hearing and investigation of the grounds for his discharge and stated in the application that he was prepared to offer evidence to contradict the charges. Petitioner further alleged that the Board of Civil Service Commissioners referred the matter to the manager of the civil service department, who in turn referred it to Esther Reimers, an employee of the department, for examination and report; that Esther Reimers collected and compiled a mass of hearsay matter and on December 5, 1943, filed with defendant commission a ‘compilation of unsworn matter as her report in said investigation * * *, unsigned, unsworn and wholly without verification’. The petitioner made further allegations to the effect that although he was notified that the commission would on December 14, 1943, consider his dicharge, defendant commission did not accord him an opportunity to be heard and did not in fact make an investigation of the cause for his discharge. It was further alleged that on December 14, 1943, a motion was adopted by defendant commission, ‘that from the information presented by both the report and the questioning by the commission of those present, the commission find that the causes for the discharge of Mr. Steen, as set forth above are sufficient and are sustained, and therefore his appeal is denied.’ Petitioner alleged that on February 25, 1944, he ‘filed with the respondent Civil Service Commission a demand in writing for reinstatement in his position’.

It is provided in section 112 1/212 of the charter of the City of Los Angeles: ‘Whenever it is claimed by any person that he has been unlawfully * * * discharged, * * * and that such * * * discharge is ineffective for any reason * * * a demand for reinstatement must be presented in writing within ninety days following the date on which it is claimed that such person was first illegally, wrongfully or invalidly * * * discharged. Such demand for reinstatement must be filed with the Board of Civil Service Commissioners. * * * Failure to file such demand for reinstatement within the time herein specified shall be a bar to any action to compel such reinstatement and proof of filing such a demand for reinstatement must be completed and proved a condition precedent to the maintenance of any action for reinstatement. * * *’

Section 112a of the charter of the City of Los Angeles provides that no person in the classified civil service shall be removed except for cause, which shall be stated in writing and filed with the Civil Service Commission. The section provides that, ‘upon such filing such * * * discharge shall take effect’. It further provides for an investigation of the discharge upon the application of the person discharged and for the reinstatement of the person discharged if the grounds stated are found not to be sustained.

The question now before us was considered by this court in Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 47 Cal.App.2d 310, 117 P.2d 901. In that case the petitioner was discharged on November 21, 1939, and he applied to the Civil Service Commission for an investigation of the grounds of his discharge on November 24, 1939. The commission sustained the discharge twenty-five days later. The petitioner filed his written demand for reinstatement on February 20, 1940, which was ninety-one days after his discharge. The court gave consideration to the provisions of section 112a and 112 1/212 of the city charter and held that the petitioner was not entitled to redress by court action because he had not complied with the mandatory provision of section 112 1/212, which required him to file his written demand for reinstatement within ninety days from the date of his discharge on November 21, 1939.

We see no reason for a departure from the views expressed by this court in the Campbell case, and for the reasons therein stated the order must be affirmed. It is therefore unnecessary to consider other points presented by respondents.

Order affirmed.

W. J. WOOD, Justice.

MOORE, P. J., and McCOMB, J., concur.