This case involved two separate involuntary transfers:  the transfer of a Robbery/Homicide lieutenant, and the transfer of a Rampart detective.  Both were transferred based on concerns about their interpersonal relationships, but neither lost any compensation.

The Transfer of the Robbery Homicide Lieutenant
In 2008, Lt. Felicia Hall was transferred to the Robbery/Homicide division and placed in charge of the sexual assault division. In 2010, Hall was criticized for her management skills and communications with her subordinate employees, and then received a negative performance evaluation in April 2011.  Based on the conclusion that Hall's supervisory style "was not a good match" for the Robbery/Homicide division's sexual assault section, the Chief of Detectives transferred Hall to the Juvenile Division to give her "a fresh start in an environment better suited to her skills," and because it served the "best interests of the Department." 

Hall retained her rank and pay as a lieutenant, however, she asserted that the transfer was "stigmatizing," and would adversely impact her future promotional opportunities based on a "practice of not promoting Lieutenants assigned to Juvenile Division to Captains." Hall further claimed that she lost pay because there were fewer available overtime hours in the Juvenile assignment, and she was no longer entitled to a department-issued take-home vehicle.

The Transfer of the Rampart Detective
In March 2000, Officer Won Chu was assigned to the Rampart Division as a detective.  During his tenure Chu was repeatedly accused of sexual harassment and inappropriate remarks.  He was then transferred because the commander perceived those complaints to have "damaged relationships with co-workers and reduced [Chu's] effectiveness in working at Rampart."  He was transferred to another division where he would be afforded a "fresh start with new co-workers."   Chu was given the choice of which division to which he would be transferred.

The Appeals
Both Hall and Chu appealed their transfers claiming that they were imposed for purposes of punishment. The City denied their appeal requests.   The Court affirmed the City's decision.

Discussion

In 1978, the Public Safety Officers' Procedural Bill of Rights Act, Government Code section 3300 et seq., was enacted to "maintain stable employer-employee relations and thereby assure effective law enforcement."  Among other things, POBR affords to public safety officers the right to an administrative appeal of any punitive action.  (Gov't C. 3304(b).) Punitive action is defined as "any action that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment."   (Gov't C. 3303.)

In deciding that neither Hall nor Chu were transferred for the purpose of punishment, the Court  noted that there is a "difference between a transfer to punish deficient performance and to compensate for deficient performance."

The Court further held that the loss of overtime opportunities, the loss of a take-home vehicle, nor lost promotional opportunities amounted to appealable actions.