California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Department of Corrections v. State Personnel Bd. (Wallace), 59 Cal.App.4th 131, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 34 (Cal. App. 1997):
"Generally speaking, '[i]n a mandamus proceeding to review an administrative order, the determination of the penalty by the administrative body will not be disturbed unless there has been an abuse of its discretion.' [Citations.]" (Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 217, 124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774.) "In considering whether such abuse occurred in the context of public employee discipline, ... the overriding consideration ... is the extent to which the employee's conduct resulted in, or if repeated is likely to result in, '[h]arm to the public service.' Other relevant factors include the circumstances surrounding the misconduct and the likelihood of its recurrence." (Id. at p. 218, 124 Cal.Rptr. 14, 539 P.2d 774, citations omitted.) "In weighing these factors, we may consider the nature of the profession in issue, since some occupations such as law enforcement, carry responsibilities and limitations on personal freedom not imposed on those in other fields. [Citation.]" (Thompson v. State Personnel Bd. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 423, 429, 247 Cal.Rptr. 210.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.