Angelique Pinkstaff (“Pinkstaff”) began her employment with the City of Los Angeles with an original appointment as an Administrative Clerk (formerly Clerk Typist) with the Department of Transportation (DOT) on November 13, 2005. Pinkstaff received a 5th month probationary evaluation report in 2006 which is rated is “Standard”. Pinkstaff has no previous discipline or commendations.
Case Summary:
The current discipline relates to several incidents of Pinkstaff engaging in inappropriate conduct (sexual relations) at the workplace and during working hours; working less than full work days without using appropriate leave time; and leaving her assigned work location without appropriate reasons. In the summer of 2015, DOT received an anonymous …show more content…
Upon hearing her request, Davey threatened Pinkstaff by saying, “If you change this in any way I’m going to come after you.” Myers continued stating that Pinkstaff relented and signed the document. Myers noted regarding the February 8 meeting that no one contacted Alice Goff, offered Pinkstaff the opportunity to have Union representation, or offered Pinkstaff the opportunity to discuss this statement with her Union representative prior to signing.
Myers states that the City does not have Just Cause to terminate Pinkstaff. She goes on to reference the criminal law case of Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534 (1961). Myers also references litigation involving false confessions in Robles v. Autozone, Inc., 2008 WL 2811762 (Cal. Ct. App. July 22, …show more content…
Additionally, her visits to the Equipment Shop that were an hour or less may have taken place during her lunch break. Taylor also permitted Pinkstaff to combine her breaks with her lunch to take a one hour lunch break. Additionally, Taylor would request that Pinkstaff travel to other work sites to deliver or pick up documents. According to Myers, there is no evidence that Pinkstaff was not visiting the Equipment Shop on legitimate work-related errands. Myer’s also stated that Pinkstaff submitted her timesheets electronically to
Case Summary:
The current discipline relates to several incidents of Pinkstaff engaging in inappropriate conduct (sexual relations) at the workplace and during working hours; working less than full work days without using appropriate leave time; and leaving her assigned work location without appropriate reasons. In the summer of 2015, DOT received an anonymous …show more content…
Upon hearing her request, Davey threatened Pinkstaff by saying, “If you change this in any way I’m going to come after you.” Myers continued stating that Pinkstaff relented and signed the document. Myers noted regarding the February 8 meeting that no one contacted Alice Goff, offered Pinkstaff the opportunity to have Union representation, or offered Pinkstaff the opportunity to discuss this statement with her Union representative prior to signing.
Myers states that the City does not have Just Cause to terminate Pinkstaff. She goes on to reference the criminal law case of Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534 (1961). Myers also references litigation involving false confessions in Robles v. Autozone, Inc., 2008 WL 2811762 (Cal. Ct. App. July 22, …show more content…
Additionally, her visits to the Equipment Shop that were an hour or less may have taken place during her lunch break. Taylor also permitted Pinkstaff to combine her breaks with her lunch to take a one hour lunch break. Additionally, Taylor would request that Pinkstaff travel to other work sites to deliver or pick up documents. According to Myers, there is no evidence that Pinkstaff was not visiting the Equipment Shop on legitimate work-related errands. Myer’s also stated that Pinkstaff submitted her timesheets electronically to