Wrongful Termination
Court Upholds One-Year Suspension in Peace Officer Discipline Case
Updated
In California Highway Patrol v. California State Personnel Board, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the State Personnel Board did not abuse its discretion when it reduced a CHP officer’s dismissal to a one-year suspension for a single false overtime claim. The court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the CHP’s writ petition. The opinion was certified for publication on August 5, 2026.
Background
The CHP dismissed Officer Nathaniel Partridge after finding he claimed roughly $290 in unearned overtime on one day in 2017 and failed to properly complete vehicle-return records on eight occasions. The overtime arose from a program in which officers assigned to highway maintenance details could be paid for a full scheduled shift even when released early, so long as they remained available at the station.
Partridge, released early, went home 35 miles away rather than standing by, yet claimed the full 10 hours. He had worked for the CHP since 2006 with no prior discipline and strong performance ratings.
He appealed to the State Personnel Board. An administrative law judge proposed a one-month suspension; the Board instead sustained charges including dishonesty and imposed a one-year suspension. The CHP petitioned the Los Angeles County Superior Court for a writ of mandate seeking dismissal, and the court denied the petition.
What the Court Held on the Board’s Penalty Discretion
The Court of Appeal reviewed the penalty under the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard from Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. A reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for the Board’s; only in an exceptional case, where reasonable minds cannot differ, will an abuse be found.
Applying the Skelly factors—harm to the public service, the surrounding circumstances, and the likelihood of recurrence—the court concluded the Board could reasonably view Partridge’s conduct as an isolated lapse in judgment rather than proof of a dishonest character. His long, discipline-free tenure and the single charged incident were proper considerations, not a disregard of the overriding concern.
The court distinguished decisions the CHP relied on, including Kolender and Cate, as involving far more egregious misconduct. It reaffirmed that dismissal is not required in every case of dishonesty.
Dishonesty by a public employee does not compel dismissal in every case. Where the Board weighs the Skelly factors and reasonably treats a single act as an isolated lapse rather than a character trait, a reduced penalty is within its discretion and will not be disturbed.
What This Means for You
This decision confirms that the State Personnel Board may reduce a dismissal to a lesser penalty even for sustained dishonesty, so long as it applies the Skelly factors and explains its reasoning. It clarifies that a single act of dishonesty does not automatically require termination of a public employee.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.