Effectively defending against SPB dishonesty charges can make a real difference between being terminated vs saving a state service career. CA Gov. Code sec. 19572(f) identifies dishonesty as grounds for discipline, and state agencies often argue that an employee who has been dishonest can no longer be trusted and therefore must be terminated.
A recently published California Court of Appeal decision can be extremely helpful to those employees who face dishonesty charges based on a single incident of alleged dishonesty. In California Highway Patrol v. California State Personnel Board (Partridge), the CHP terminated a longtime officer after concluding that he dishonestly claimed overtime pay. The SPB ultimately agreed that the officer had engaged in dishonesty, but nevertheless reduced his dismissal to a one-year unpaid suspension. The trial court and the court of appeal affirmed SPB’s decision. This decision provides several important lessons for state employees defending dishonesty charges before the SPB.
1. Determine Whether the Evidence Actually Proves Dishonesty
An agency should not be able to transform every mistake, inaccurate statement, incomplete form, or violation of procedure into “dishonesty.” Intent and context matter. The underlying proceedings in Partridge illustrate this distinction particularly well.
Partridge was a CHP officer assigned to overtime work. Under a written procedure, officers released early by Caltrans could still receive compensation through the scheduled end of the assignment, but they were supposed to remain at the CHP office and available for recall. Partridge knew about that requirement. However, on the occasion underlying the dishonesty charge, he left the station and went home while claiming overtime through the scheduled conclusion of the assignment.
Interestingly, the Administrative Law Judge initially rejected the dishonesty charge. The ALJ found Partridge credible when he denied intending to deceive the CHP. Among other circumstances, Caltrans had approved the full scheduled overtime period, officers released early were not expected to perform additional tasks unless recalled, and there was evidence suggesting that officers commonly went home after early release.
The ALJ also placed significant weight on Partridge’s demeanor and consistency. He testified clearly and straightforwardly and admitted what he had done rather than attempting to deny that he left early. His testimony was substantially consistent with what he had previously told internal affairs. This illustrates an important defense strategy: separate an inaccurate statement or rule violation from an intent to deceive whenever the evidence permits it.
Relevant evidence may include the employee’s understanding of the rule, instructions received from supervisors, ambiguity in forms or procedures, past practices in the workplace, contemporaneous communications, whether the employee attempted to conceal what happened, and whether the employee gave a consistent account when questioned by ALJ, or any attorney involved in any type of underlying disciplinary proceedings.
Credibility can also matter a lot. A categorical denial of engaging in conduct in question that conflicts with documentary evidence may do considerably more damage than acknowledging an error while accurately explaining the surrounding circumstances.
2. Be Careful With the “Everyone Else Was Doing It” Defense
One of the most important lessons of Partridge is what did not work.
There was evidence that other officers had also gone home after their similar assignments ended early. Management practices were inconsistent. One administrative lieutenant believed officers could go home as long as they remained capable of returning within a reasonable time, while other supervisors apparently did not even know the applicable procedure.
But the SPB rejected the proposition that widespread noncompliance automatically excused Partridge. In substance, the Board concluded that management’s failure to enforce a rule does not necessarily make prohibited conduct permissible.
That is a critical practical distinction. Past practice and inconsistent enforcement can still be highly relevant. They may help demonstrate an employee’s state of mind, ambiguity concerning expectations, lack of deceptive intent, inconsistent discipline, or circumstances mitigating the penalty. But “other people did it too” should rarely be the entire defense.
A stronger argument is usually: Here is why these workplace practices affected what this particular employee reasonably understood, intended, or believed at the time.
3. Separate Carelessness From Intentional Deception
State agencies sometimes try to combine several errors and characterize them collectively as a scheme of dishonesty. That strategy should be challenged when the evidence does not establish the necessary connection.
Partridge had failed to properly record the return time of his patrol vehicle on eight separate forms. The CHP argued that these omissions helped conceal his improper overtime practices. But neither the SPB nor the courts were required to accept that conclusion. The Court of Appeal emphasized that the vehicle forms were not the records upon which overtime compensation was based, and that none of those omissions was meaningfully connected to another false overtime claim. Therefore, the Board could reasonably view the paperwork problems as carelessness rather than evidence of a larger deceptive scheme.
This is an important evidentiary defense in SPB cases. When an agency points to multiple irregularities, each one should be examined separately: Was it intentional? Was it significant? Was it actually connected to the alleged deception? Was the employee responsible for the entry? Was the form used for the purpose the agency now claims? Does the agency have evidence connecting the mistake to an improper benefit? A collection of administrative mistakes does not necessarily establish a pattern of dishonesty.
4. Limit the Case to the Misconduct Actually Charged
Another important aspect of Partridge involved an attempt to expand a single incident into evidence of broader misconduct. During the investigation, Partridge apparently acknowledged that he had “possibly” left the area early on two or three other occasions. But CHP had charged only one false overtime claim.
The trial court declined to treat that vague statement as a basis for punishing him for additional acts of dishonesty that had not actually been charged. This can be extremely important in SPB litigation. A Notice of Adverse Action defines the misconduct the employee is being called upon to defend. Where an agency claims that one incident establishes a “pattern,” the defense should ask: What other proven and properly charged dishonest acts make up that pattern?
That question became particularly important in Partridge because the distinction between an isolated lapse in judgment and a disposition toward dishonesty ultimately affected whether termination was justified.
5. Even If Dishonesty Is Proven, Termination Doesn’t Automatically Follow
This may be the most important holding of Partridge. The SPB ultimately disagreed with the ALJ and found that Partridge had been dishonest. According to the Board, he knew he was required to remain at the station to claim the entire overtime period, yet deliberately entered an end time that entitled him to compensation for the full assignment. Nevertheless, the SPB refused to uphold his dismissal.
The Court expressly rejected CHP’s position that dishonesty necessarily required termination. Relying in part on County of Siskiyou v. State Personnel Board (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1606, the court reiterated that dismissal is not mandatory in every case involving dishonesty.
That distinction is very important. Even assuming the Board finds dishonesty, dismissal is often disproportionate to the violation that actually occurred.
6. Argue Lesser Penalty Build As Per Skelly Factors
Under Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, the principal consideration in determining the appropriate discipline is the actual or potential harm to the public service. Other relevant considerations include the circumstances surrounding the misconduct and the likelihood that it will recur. Partridge strongly reinforces that these factors require an individualized analysis.
CHP argued essentially that dishonesty itself should override mitigating considerations. The Court of Appeal rejected that approach. The court explained that considering the larger circumstances and the likelihood of recurrence was part of the SPB’s obligation under the Skelly case.
This means an effective defense against termination should develop evidence concerning:
- length of state service;
- prior disciplinary history;
- performance evaluations;
- commendations and promotions;
- whether the alleged dishonesty occurred once or repeatedly;
- the employee’s motive;
- whether the employee personally profited and by how much;
- whether the misconduct was planned or spontaneous;
- whether the employee attempted a cover-up;
- whether the employee admitted what happened;
- whether remedial measures have already been taken;
- whether the circumstances that produced the misconduct are likely to recur; and
- whether substantial discipline short of termination can adequately protect the public service.
7. An Isolated Act of Dishonesty Is Not Necessarily a Character Trait
Agencies frequently characterize dishonesty as proof that an employee is inherently untrustworthy. Partridge significantly limits the usefulness of that argument when the factual record shows an isolated event.
CHP relied on Kolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Commission (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 716, a case containing strong language describing dishonesty as a continuing character trait. However, Court of Appeal emphasized the factual context of Kolender: the officer there lied to protect another officer involved in the abuse of an inmate and did not admit the truth until investigators discovered the lie.
The court held that Kolender does not require the SPB to treat every dishonest act as proof of an employee’s permanent disposition to lie, cheat, or deceive. That distinction offers a powerful framework for defending appropriate cases. The relevant question should not simply be: “Was this employee dishonest?” It should also be: “What does the proven misconduct actually tell us about this employee’s future reliability?” Those questions are often not answered the same way.
8. A Long and Clean Employment Record Can Carry Significant Weight
Partridge had worked for CHP since 2006. He had no prior adverse actions and had received excellent or proficient performance ratings. His evaluations described him as dependable, conscientious, organized, mature, and capable of leadership. The SPB considered that record significant in their overall decision making. It contrasted Partridge’s single charged false overtime claim with other cases involving systematic or extensive overtime fraud and concluded that the evidence did not necessarily demonstrate a propensity for deception. The Court of Appeal agreed that the Board was entitled to give substantial consideration to his employment history.
Performance reviews, commendations, promotions, special assignments, awards, attendance history, testimony from supervisors and coworkers, and evidence of positions of trust may all help establish that the alleged incident is inconsistent with the employee’s demonstrated character over many years.
9. Evidence Showing Low Likelihood of Recurrence Can Be Critical
One of the Skelly factors is whether the misconduct is likely to happen again. The SPB concluded that Partridge’s behavior was unlikely to recur because the misconduct was limited, the CHP had now emphatically demonstrated the consequences of violating its overtime policy, and a one-year unpaid suspension itself constituted extremely serious discipline. The Court of Appeal found that conclusion reasonable. It held that the Board could determine that the disciplinary proceedings and loss of an entire year’s salary would sufficiently deter similar misconduct in the future.
Employees facing termination should therefore consider presenting affirmative evidence of why recurrence is unlikely. That may include acknowledgment of an error, demonstrated understanding of the applicable policy, changed procedures, training, repayment of improperly received compensation where appropriate, a spotless record before and after the incident, or other evidence showing that the circumstances giving rise to the violation are unlikely to repeat themselves.
10. Do Not Minimize Serious Misconduct When Arguing for a Lesser Penalty
One subtle lesson from Partridge is that mitigation does not require pretending serious misconduct was trivial. The SPB expressly recognized that Partridge’s conduct was dishonest, harmful to the public service, and particularly concerning because peace officers are held to a high standard of integrity. Yet it still concluded that dismissal was excessive based on the totality of the circumstances. That can be a more persuasive advocacy model than insisting that clearly problematic conduct was not a big deal.
An employee can argue that the conduct was serious, but it was isolated; that he made a serious error in judgment, but the evidence does not establish an actual propensity for dishonesty; and that significant discipline is justified, but the ultimate penalty of termination is disproportionate and excessive.
The Broader Lesson From Partridge
The most important practical point from CHP v. SPB (Partridge) is that a dishonesty case should rarely be viewed as presenting only an all-or-nothing question. There are usually at least two separate battles. The first is whether the agency actually proved dishonesty, including the required intentional or deceptive component rather than mere mistake, negligence, misunderstanding, or poor record keeping. The second is whether the proven misconduct justifies the penalty imposed. For California state employees accused of dishonesty, that may be Partridge‘s most valuable lesson: a finding of dishonesty can be extraordinarily serious without automatically being career-ending.