Sergio Ramirez began his tenure as a police officer in the California City of Indio Police Department in 2005. In August 2016, Ramirez was charged with rape and two additional counts of sexual assault of his 18-year-old niece. The City of Indio placed Ramirez on administrative leave, asked him to turn in his work cell phone, and initiated an internal affairs investigation. Ramirez was acquitted of all charges in 2018, but the City’s IA investigation produced two conflicting reports – one sergeant found that Ramirez had violated multiple standards of conduct found in the Department manual, while a different sergeant found that the previously identified policy violations were “not sustained.”
On October 23, 2019, the Chief of Police issued a Notice of Termination to Ramirez, writing: “Based on your admission that you drove under the influence of alcohol alone I would terminate your employment, but the preponderance of the evidence establishes that you also engaged in dishonest behavior and showed poor judgment that embarrassed the City and the Indio Police Department.”
Ramirez appealed the decision by requesting an “Evidentiary Appeal to Advisory Arbitration,” pursuant to the MOU between the City and the Indio Police Officers’ Association. The Arbitrator recommended that the Chief’s decision to terminate Ramirez be overturned, finding that the City failed to carry its burden to establish three claims that formed the basis of the termination: (1) that Ramirez drove while intoxicated; (2) that he reset his Department-issued cell phone with an intent to destroy evidence and then lied about it; and (3) that he made inconsistent statements during his IA interviews and at trial with an intent to lie or misrepresent his actions.
The Arbitrator noted that the Notice of Termination “recites Ramirez’s arrest on charges of sexual assault and the adverse publicity that resulted from Ramirez’s sexual encounter with his niece and his prosecution,” while the Chief’s testimony was that the encounter was unrelated to the termination. The Arbitrator found the evidence “suggests that the Chief’s decision in this case might have been motivated by the embarrassment suffered by the Department that were the product of Ramirez’s engaging in sexual conduct.” Such conduct, he concluded, would be an improper basis of any disciplinary action, given its absence from the Notice of Termination.
In 2021, after a thorough review of the record, the City Manager rejected the Arbitrator’s advisory findings and recommendations and affirmed the termination. His decision was “based on Ramirez’s poor judgment and conduct unbecoming an officer that he exhibited on the evening of August 5, 2016, and the following days. Ramirez admitted to using alcohol ‘five to six beers over three and a half hours’ and subsequently driving home while feeling the effects of the alcohol. That poor judgment led Ramirez to engage in sexual acts with a young woman who had just turned 18 years old, resulting in her filing a police report against him for sexual assault. This young woman was related to Ramirez by marriage, and she considered him a father or uncle figure in her life. Ramirez violated her trust, and the trust placed in him by the community as a sworn police officer. Ramirez subsequently demonstrated dishonesty in his statements and behaviors as the matter was investigated and tried. Ramirez’s actions violated City policies, Department policies, and Standards of Conduct as noted in the Notice of Termination dated October 23, 2019.”
Ramirez’s appeal from that determination to the superior court was rejected, and so he appealed once more.
The California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One, affirmed the ruling of the superior court, finding no abuse of discretion on its part. The appeals procedure of the MOU, the Court found, explicitly vests final say on the issue of disciplinary action to the City Manager. While the MOU also provided that an arbitrator will “determine relevancy, weight and credibility of testimony and evidence,” the Court was unconvinced by Ramirez’s proposed interpretation of the provision – that the Arbitrator’s determinations on those matters were binding on the City Manager, who is authorized to by the MOU to “affirm, revoke, or modify the findings, recommendations, or disciplinary action taken.
“Nothing in the MOU’s language or framework suggests any intent to extend the Arbitrator’s authority beyond the hearing itself or to require the City Manager to defer to the Arbitrator’s relevancy, weight and credibility findings.” The Court also found that the MOU’s appeals procedure, which provides for “just resolution,” would have been violated by allowing the Arbitrator to fail to consider Ramirez’s sexual conduct as a basis for his termination.
The Court rejected Ramirez’s due process argument, finding that the appeals procedure more than satisfied the requirements of due process by providing Ramirez with the basis and materials on which his termination was based, giving him an opportunity to respond, and providing him a meaningful opportunity to present his case in a hearing where the City had the burden of proof.
Ramirez v. City of Indio, D082997 (Cal. App. 4th, 2024).