Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nathaniel Helton worked for the Los Angeles Fire Department for nearly 20 years. In August 2021, the Los Angeles City Council adopted an ordinance requiring city employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or request an exemption and report their status by October 19, 2021. Helton did neither. After receiving a noncompliance notice, he was placed on leave without pay on December 6, 2021, effective December 7, 2021.
LAFD scheduled Board of Rights hearings for March 10, 2022 and, after Helton refused to attend over claimed Skelly due-process deficiencies, April 1, 2022; Helton attended neither. On April 4, 2022, LAFD issued formal charges to the Board of Fire Commissioners, including a complaint signed by a Deputy Chief. By letter dated May 31, 2022, LAFD scheduled another BOR hearing for June 9, 2022. Helton's counsel again said he would not participate. The BOR convened as scheduled, Helton did not appear, and Fire Chief Kristin M. Crowley removed him without further hearing under Los Angeles City Charter section 1060(h); LAFD notified him he was terminated effective May 31, 2022.
Helton petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate seeking reinstatement with backpay. The court granted the petition in part: it found the City violated section 1060 by summarily removing Helton from the payroll on December 6, 2021, but upheld the June 9, 2022 termination for failing to attend the BOR hearing and held that Helton had not exhausted administrative remedies. It awarded backpay from December 7, 2021 through June 9, 2022. Helton appealed and the City and Crowley cross-appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. It rejected Helton's central framing that he was fired for refusing the vaccine: he was placed off duty without pay for that reason, but he was terminated because he failed to appear at his June 9, 2022 BOR hearing. Section 1060(h) authorizes the Fire Chief to terminate without a hearing for nonappearance at a duly noticed BOR hearing, and Helton did not challenge that authority on appeal. Because he willfully refused to attend, he failed to exhaust administrative remedies, barring relief. His futility-exception argument was forfeited below and, on the merits, failed because he could not show the BOR had declared what its ruling would be. His claims that a Deputy Chief's signature invalidated the complaint and that termination was disproportionate under Skelly were waived or rested on the same false premise.
On the cross-appeal, the court upheld the backpay award. Section 1060(a) makes an LAFD member's position and compensation a substantial property right that cannot be deprived arbitrarily or summarily except as provided in subsections (b) and (h); subsection (b) permits temporary relief from duty only after the predisciplinary procedures required by law. The City summarily placed Helton on unpaid leave effective December 7, 2021 without those procedures. In addition, section 1060(c) requires the Fire Chief to file a complaint with the Board of Fire Commissioners within five days of temporary relief, failing which the order becomes void and the member is restored without loss of pay. The City filed nothing until May 5, 2022, so Helton's unpaid leave became a nullity on or about December 12, 2021 and could not justify withholding pay through his June 9, 2022 termination.
Key Takeaways
- A firefighter terminated for failing to attend a duly noticed Board of Rights hearing cannot obtain reinstatement by arguing he was fired for the underlying vaccine noncompliance.
- Willfully refusing to attend an administrative hearing is not exhaustion of remedies and bars judicial relief; the futility exception requires proof the agency declared its ruling, not speculation.
- Under Los Angeles City Charter section 1060(c), failing to file the complaint with the Board of Fire Commissioners within five days voids temporary unpaid relief and supports backpay.
- Arguments not adequately developed in the trial court brief are waived on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision cleanly separates the ground for unpaid leave from the ground for termination. Even where the initial removal from payroll violated charter procedures, a termination resting on an independent, unchallenged ground—failure to appear at the disciplinary hearing—stands, and the exhaustion doctrine bars judicial second-guessing of the Fire Chief's section 1060(h) action.
For charter cities, the opinion confirms that section 1060 creates enforceable property rights in public employment and that missing the five-day filing requirement automatically voids temporary unpaid relief, creating backpay liability even when the employee was later validly terminated. Public employers must follow charter filing requirements precisely to avoid monetary liability.