Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Timmiya Burrise worked as a psychiatric technician for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation at the California Health Care Facility. In March 2021, she began having difficulties with a mentally ill inmate known to be disruptive and violent toward staff. After the inmate attempted to spit on her and made threats against her, Burrise confronted him on May 14, 2021, while he was being escorted unrestrained to an exercise yard. Surveillance video showed Burrise leaving the nurses' station, approaching within 15 feet of the inmate, and yelling profanity at him, including daring him to strike her. A correctional sergeant intervened, and another technician guided Burrise away. The next day, Burrise wrote a progress note in the inmate's medical file that omitted her own escalating actions and falsely claimed she had attempted to redirect the inmate. More than a year later, in an August 2022 internal affairs interview, Burrise falsely stated that the sergeant had not intervened during the altercation.
CDCR issued a notice of adverse action dismissing Burrise in December 2022, charging her with inexcusable neglect of duty, dishonesty, discourteous treatment, and other failure of good behavior under Government Code section 19572. The State Personnel Board sustained her dismissal after an administrative hearing. The ALJ credited testimony from correctional staff over Burrise's account and found that she had neglected her duties to act professionally, wear a face mask, and act honestly, and also sustained separate charges of dishonesty, discourteous treatment, and failure of good behavior, concluding that dismissal was appropriate given the safety risks and likelihood of recurrence. Burrise petitioned the superior court for a writ of administrative mandate. The trial court found that one allegation—unprofessional conduct toward a correctional officer—was not supported by substantial evidence, but upheld the remaining charges and declined to remand for reconsideration of the penalty. Burrise appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. Applying the substantial evidence standard, the court agreed that the record did not support the finding that Burrise neglected her duty of professionalism in her interaction with Officer Padilla, where witnesses testified that Padilla was the aggressor. However, substantial evidence supported the remaining charges: Burrise neglected her duties by confronting the inmate with profanity and encouraging violence, failing to wear a face mask in a quarantined unit, and making false statements in the progress note and internal investigation. The court upheld the dishonesty charge, finding that Burrise intentionally skewed facts to portray herself as a victim, and rejected her arguments that her conduct did not constitute discourteous treatment or failure of good behavior, noting that her actions created serious safety risks and disrupted institutional operations.
The court also rejected Burrise's challenge to the dismissal penalty. The SPB did not abuse its discretion in concluding that dismissal was appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct, the likelihood of recurrence, and Burrise's dishonesty in covering up her actions. Finally, the court held that remand for reconsideration of the penalty was not required despite the rejection of one allegation. Under the 'no real doubt' exception, the remaining sustained charges were far more serious than the unsubstantiated allegation regarding Officer Padilla, so there was no real doubt the SPB would have imposed the same penalty based on the remaining misconduct.
Key Takeaways
- Substantial evidence supported the SPB's finding that a psychiatric technician neglected her duties by confronting a mentally ill inmate with profanity and encouraging him to strike her, despite her claims of provocation.
- A progress note that omits the writer's own escalating actions and falsely claims an attempt to redirect a patient can constitute dishonesty supporting disciplinary action.
- False statements during an internal affairs investigation, including denying that a supervisor intervened when video evidence shows otherwise, provide an independent basis for discipline.
- Dismissal is not an excessive penalty for misconduct that creates serious safety risks and is compounded by dishonesty, even for an employee with only one prior adverse action in ten years.
- Remand for reconsideration of a disciplinary penalty is not required when one charge is rejected if there is no real doubt the agency would impose the same penalty based on the remaining sustained charges.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the deference courts give to State Personnel Board credibility determinations and factual findings under the substantial evidence standard. It clarifies that correctional employees have a duty to maintain professionalism even when provoked by inmates, and that dishonesty in medical records and internal investigations constitutes serious misconduct justifying dismissal. The ruling also illustrates the 'no real doubt' exception to the general remand rule, allowing courts to affirm a penalty without remand when the rejected charge is minor compared to the sustained misconduct.