of the rights secured by the PSOPBRA. (Baggett, 32 Cal.3d supra, “basic,” “minimum” at p. 135.) We do not construe the statute or as permitting a court to exempt a Baggett municipality from this requirement based on the asserted fairness of its disciplinary procedure as a whole. In sum, as Morgado points out, the argument rests upon a City’s “home rule” flawed premise: the procedures do not the City’s meet, let alone “exceed,” “minimum of the PSOPBRA, because they do not allow for opportunity for mandates” “an administrative from the ultimately taken against Morgado—i.e., appeal” “punitive action” his termination by the Commission. (See § 3304, subd. (b); 32 Cal.3d at Baggett, supra, p. 135 [The PSOPBRA a catalogue of the rights (§ 3310) the Legislature minimum “is deems necessary to secure stable employer-employee relations (§ (Italics 3301).” added.)].) For the foregoing reasons, we reject the argument. City’s “home rule” III. DISPOSITION The trial judgment and accompanying injunctive order are affirmed. court’s _________________________ Streeter, J. We concur: _________________________ Ruvolo, P.J. _________________________ Rivera, J.
of the “basic,” “minimum” rights secured by the PSOPBRA. (Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 135.) We do not construe the statute or Baggett as permitting a court to exempt a municipality from this requirement based on the asserted fairness of its disciplinary procedure as a whole. In sum, as Morgado points out, the City’s “home rule” argument rests upon a flawed premise: the City’s procedures do not meet, let alone “exceed,” the “minimum mandates” of the PSOPBRA, because they do not allow for “an opportunity for administrative appeal” from the “punitive action” ultimately taken against Morgado—i.e., his termination by the Commission. (See § 3304, subd. (b); Baggett, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 135 [The PSOPBRA “is a catalogue of the minimum rights (§ 3310) the Legislature deems necessary to secure stable employer-employee relations (§ 3301).” (Italics added.)].) For the foregoing reasons, we reject the City’s “home rule” argument. III. DISPOSITION The trial court’s judgment and accompanying injunctive order are affirmed. _________________________ Streeter, J. We concur: _________________________ Ruvolo, P.J. _________________________ Rivera, J.
A141681.DOCX