Is a peace officer reassigned for purposes of punishment entitled to an administrative appeal?

For the reasons set forth in White v. County of Sacramento, supra, 31 Cal.3d 676, at pages 679-684, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191, this court has concluded that the phrase "for purposes of punishment" qualifies only the term "transfer." "[A] decision to reassign a peace officer to a lower paying position is per se disciplinary, or punitive in nature ...." (Id., at pp. 683-684, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520, 646 P.2d 191.) Accordingly, under section 3304 an officer subject to such action must be accorded the opportunity for an administrative appeal. (Ibid.) It follows that plaintiffs here are entitled to an administrative appeal.

Moreover, "looking through form to substance," it is evident that plaintiffs' reassignments came about because of their alleged improper prior conduct. (Heyenga v. City of San Diego (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 756, 759, 156 Cal.Rptr. 496.) The record before this court compels the conclusion that plaintiffs were reassigned "for purposes of punishment."

[32 Cal.3d 142]