Service Employees International Union Local 1021 v. County of Mendocino

Background

Service Employees International Union Local 1021 and Henry Frahm Rinne sued the County of Mendocino. The complaint alleged that the county violated Frahm’s due-process rights under the United States and California Constitutions.

Frahm had been terminated from his employment as a county custodian in August 2016. In 2019, the county issued a notice of intent to discipline and then an order permanently dismissing him. Frahm appealed under Chapter Three of the County Civil Service Code. Four of five civil service commissioners held a hearing at which the parties presented witnesses and documents and had the opportunity to question witnesses. The commissioners then voted two-to-two on the appeal. The commission chair later stated that no motion had received a majority and that the disciplinary order therefore remained in effect.

The complaint asserted four claims. Among other relief, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the county violated their rights, an order revoking Frahm’s dismissal and reinstating him, damages, and attorney fees. One claim was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a person to sue a local government for certain constitutional violations caused by its policy or lack of policy.

Motion and analysis

The county moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It argued that the complaint did not identify a federal due-process violation, that the plaintiffs had not shown a basis for federal-question jurisdiction, that the county had applied its rules correctly, and that amendment would be futile.

The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege a federal due-process violation. The county code provision cited by the plaintiffs did not require the county to take additional action when the commissioners were not persuaded by a majority to affirm, modify, or revoke a disciplinary order. The complaint also did not allege that leaving the termination in effect required a majority vote or explain how allowing a tie vote to have that effect violated federal procedural due process.

The court recognized that Frahm had a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment. It also noted that he received a two-day hearing that appeared meaningful, including the presentation of witnesses and documentary evidence and the opportunity to question witnesses. But the court concluded that Frahm had not shown that a county policy or lack of policy caused a due-process violation, as required for the § 1983 claim against the county.

The court dismissed the federal claims with leave to amend. Because the federal claims were being dismissed, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining California constitutional claim and dismissed that claim with leave to amend as well.

Disposition

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice. It ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended pleading, if at all, no later than 30 days from the date of the order.