Archive for the ‘Labor and Employment Client Outcomes’ Category

Right to Meet and Confer Upheld for Chico POA

Friday, June 4th, 2010

After a 13 month battle in Superior Court,  G&A attorney John McCaslin’s and labor representative Steve Allen’s efforts prevailed against the City of Chico on behalf of our Client, Chico Police Officer’s Association. Chico POA President, Terry Moore expressed his gratitude to G&A – especially to John and Steve in a much appreciated letter, to Paul Goyette.

“For a variety of reasons, this was not an easy case. But at every juncture, I found Steve and John to be tremendously helpful and openly accessible… I found [them] very skilled at what they do. They represent you, your staff and your offices in a very positive light.

I think it’s important to let you know about the great job they did. And personally, I love winning. They both helped make that happen.

With Goyette and Associates on our team, I look forward to the next battle.

Sincerely,

Terry Moore”

To Read Terry Moore’s letter in its entirety, click  Chico POA Letter from Terry Moore 5-20-10

Attorney Dan Thompson Achieves Results at Skelly Hearing

Thursday, April 1st, 2010

 Police Officer with Hayward PD was recently served with a notice of a 1 week suspension without pay in addition to a 1 pay step reduction for an entire year.  The allegations giving rise to this discipline pertained to eleven departmental reports that were alleged to have been turned in late or not properly completed.  Goyette attorney Dan Thompson conducted a detailed and lengthy Skelly hearing on behalf of the officer and went through each report and the circumstances surrounding it.  As a result, the Chief only sustained discipline on 5 reports and reduced the discipline to a 1 pay step reduction for 12 pay periods.  The reason this hearing was successful was due to the time invested to properly evaluate the facts and bring to light each detail in our client’s favor.  In addition to simply conducting the Skelly on the facts, Dan also worked with the Chief to find a method by which the officer could avoid similar problems in the future thereby working towards a long term solution for his client.

Termination Reduced to Voluntary Demotion with Same Pay

Friday, March 26th, 2010

On November 10, 2009 an employee at the High Desert State Prison received some of the worst news anyone in today’s economy can receive; she was terminated effective immediately.  She contacted Goyette and Associates to help her in this time of crisis and her case was assigned to attorney Dan Thompson.  For state employees who have an appeal right to the State Personnel Board, a pre-hearing settlement conference is first required to attempt to resolve the matter.  At the settlement conference only 4 months later, Attorney Thompson was able to successfully salvage her career.  Instead of a termination, Dan negotiated a voluntary demotion to another job classification (with almost identical pay) while working with a different supervisor with whom she did not have the same conflicts.  In addition, her ability to promote in the future was not restricted, the notice of adverse action imposing the termination was withdrawn and she also received some back pay.  In today’s economy all of your appeal options must be aggressively pursued and thoroughly utilized to obtain the best possible resolution in a system that can be painfully slow.  Goyette and Associates takes full advantage of each stage of appeal to obtain the best possible result for their clients.

Carefully Evaluating Evidence is Key to Skelly Success

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

Correctional Officer with San Joaquin County was recently given notice of a 3 day suspension without pay for allegations of sustained misconduct involving failure to appear for a subpoena. However, after the details were carefully examined by Goyette attorney Dan Thompson, he argued at the Skelly hearing that there was more to the story. Internal failure to properly serve the subpoena along with a deputy DA with a bad attitude severely complicated the situation. After a detailed review of the mitigating factors, the discipline was reduced to a 12 hour suspension and most importantly, the charge of intentional failure to follow the orders of a supervisor was removed from the final Notice. Carefully evaluating the evidence provided by the employer in these cases is the key to success on appeal.

Brilliant v. City of Elk Grove

Saturday, March 20th, 2010

Former city official sues over alleged layoff deal Elk Grove Citizen

The City of Elk Grove recently made the “risky” move of laying off  its entire Risk Management Department– and then refused to follow through with its promise to pay severance. G&A is taking the City on to make them follow through with their promises. To learn more….(the article is above)

G&A Win: Modesto PD to Remove a Letter of Reprimand from Officer’s Personnel File

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

The Stanislaus County Superior Court has granted the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by Goyette & Associates, Inc. on behalf of a Modesto Police Officer. The Writ of Mandate will direct the City of Modesto and Modesto Police Department to remove a letter of reprimand and related documents from the Officer’s personnel file as a result of the Modesto Police Department’s failure to comply with statutory time limits for imposing disciplinary action on the officer.

The Petition was based on Government Code Section 3304 (f) which requires that a public agency notify an officer of disciplinary action within 30 days of its decision to impose the discipline. In this case, the Modesto Police Department issued the officer a preliminary notice of intent to impose discipline, and then waited more than 5 months before taking the action and notifying the officer. Counsel for the City of Modesto opposed the Petition on various procedural and substantive grounds.

The Court initially issued a tentative ruling on February 4, 2010 denying the Petition on various grounds, including that Subsection (f) does not provide a remedy for a violation of the 30-day time period. Goyette & Associates attorney John McCaslin requested a hearing on the tentative ruling, and the Court heard arguments from counsel for both parties. At the conclusion of oral arguments, the judge took the matter under submission, but indicated that he was inclined to change his initial ruling based on the arguments. On February 10, 2010, the Court issued a Minute Order reversing the tentative ruling and granting the Petition.

Butte County Court rejects Demurrer to CPOA’s Petition for Writ of Mandate

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

On January 28, 2010, the Butte County Superior Court issued its tentative ruling overruling the City of Chico’s Demurrer to the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed by Goyette & Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Chico Police Officers Association (CPOA) to compel the City of Chico to comply with the meet and confer requirements of the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA).

In 2009, the City of Chico unilaterally adopted a change to the job description for the position of Police Sergeant with the Chico Police Department. This change had a negative and immediate effect on current Chico Police Officers, and the CPOA attempted to meet and confer with the City about their concerns. The City refused to meet and confer with CPOA as required under the MMBA, and eventually CPOA was forced to resort to the Court to compel the City to comply with its statutory obligation, filing a Petition for Writ of Mandate under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085.

In response to the Petition, the City of Chico filed a demurrer to challenge the legal sufficiency of the arguments made in the Petition. The demurrer and Petition were calendared for a hearing date on January 29, 2010, but the day before the hearing, the Court issues its ruling rejecting the Demurrer which had been opposed by Goyette & Associate’s Attorney, John McCaslin. The Court gave the City 20 days to answer the Petition, and will set a further hearing to rule on the Petition.

Testimonial From One of Our Return Association Clients

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Hello Jennifer,

 Rafael and I communicated by email before the holidays.  If memory serves me, we were going to give [our current representative]  until after the first to respond to our request for the return of our records.  To date I have not heard from them.

Regarding [your poetntial associaition],  We would be glad to talk with them.  I had a voicemail from [them] before Christmas.  I called him back yesterday.  He was not in so I left a voicemail with the investigation secretary.  I will follow up to make sure he received it.  Let me try him again tomorrow.  If I am not able to talk with him, I would be glad to write something for you to provide to them.

I have to say that we have had more contact with you these past few weeks than we have had from [our current representative] in at least the past three years.  Many times, while paying association bills, I wondered what exactly we were paying them for.  We are very happy to be re-associated with Paul and his firm.  Our prior association with him was severed due to a unilateral decision by one person, which turned out to be a very bad decision for our members.  Many people who were here then, and still with us today, were very happy to hear the news. 

I will email you tomorrow.

 Thank you,

 D

Lauro Paredes’ Clients Absolved by Yolo DA and AG in April Shooting

Wednesday, November 25th, 2009

Once again Goyette & Associates Labor Attorneys were instrumental in  affectively representing the interests of our valued clients. Lauro Paredes was the G&A attorney who responded to an officer involved shooting in Woodland last April. Due in no small part to careful counsel and an immediate response from Mr. Paredes, no charges will be filed against  the three Yolo County Sheriff’s Deputies.

From KCRA.Com:

http://www.kcra.com/news/21715695/detail.html?taf=sac

Luis Gutierrez Navarro Killed In Woodland

POSTED: 3:21 pm PST November 24, 2009
UPDATED: 7:04 pm PST November 24, 2009

 
WOODLAND, Calif. — No charges will be filed against the Yolo County sheriff’s deputies who were involved in the shooting of a farmworker earlier this year. ”The deputies acted in self-defense. Finding the shooting lawful, we will take no further action in the matter,” according to the Yolo County District Attorney’s report.

 Luis Gutierrez Navarro, 26, was killed on April 30 near a Woodland overpass.

 California Attorney General Jerry Brown upheld the findings.

 ”After a complete review of all available information, we have concluded that your decision was not unreasonable and thus did not constitute an abuse of discretion,” Brown’s letter to the Yolo County District Attorney’s office said.

 The attorney general’s office conducted an independent review of the report after the Yolo County District Attorney’s Office requested it. The FBI, which is also conducting an independent review, is ongoing.

 The report determined that Navarro immediately fled when he was contacted by Sgt. Dale Johnson, Deputy Hernan Oviedo and Deputy Hector Bautista, who were working as part of the Yolo County Gang Task Force.

 The deputies, who were in regular clothes, were crossing over the Highway 113 overpass in Woodland in a Ford Taurus when they saw Navarro walking along East Gum Avenue.

 ”Deputy Bautista thought Navarro looked familiar and might be on probation or parole,” the report said.

 Navarro was also high on methamphetamine at the time, according to the report.

 ”However, regardless of his state of mind, Navarro was not legally justified in using deadly force against the deputies,” the report said.

 The report said Navarro also had a concealed knife in his pocket and swung it at one of the deputies.

 ”When Navarro displayed the knife he had concealed in his pants pocket and assaulted Johnson, Navarro committed a violation of Penal Code Section 245(c), assault with a deadly weapon upon a peace officer,” the report said. “The use of force by Sgt. Johnson and Deputy Oviedo was necessary to accomplish that lawful purpose and to defend the deputies from imminent great bodily injury or death.”

 According to the report, although Navarro may have not have realized that the men who were chasing him were from law enforcement, “the deputies stated that they identified themselves as police officers by showing their badges and guns and verbally identified themselves numerous times during the foot pursuit.”

 Now that the report is out, some members of the Yolo Justice Coalition said they are displeased.

 ”When you shoot a man in the back, as they did to Luis Gutierrez, and you have undercover sheriffs who are dressed like gang members themselves and in a gang member car, and he’s shot in the back, there’s a lot of questions to why they stopped him in the first place,” Al Rojas from the coalition said.

 The coroner who did the autopsy on Navarro determined that the bullet went into his right rear shoulder. The bullet went through the side of Navarro’s shoulder and then out through his jaw.