Erickson v. Spokane County Civil Service Commission

39 Wash. App. 271
CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington
DecidedDecember 20, 1984
DocketNo. 6127-2-III
StatusPublished

This text of 39 Wash. App. 271 (Erickson v. Spokane County Civil Service Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Erickson v. Spokane County Civil Service Commission, 39 Wash. App. 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— Brian J. Smith, a deputy sheriff, was discharged from service by the sheriff. He appealed, and following a hearing, the Spokane County Civil Service Commission, pursuant to RCW 41.14.110, in lieu of affirming the removal, directed a 30-day suspension. On appeal to superior court, the sheriff maintained the commission exceeded its statutory authority and was arbitrary and capricious. The Superior Court affirmed the commission. We agree.

Pool v. Omak, 36 Wn. App. 844, 678 P.2d 343 (1984) is dispositive of the sheriff's claim the commission exceeded its authority. There this court held that RCW 41.12.090, containing language virtually identical to RCW 41.14.110, allows the commission discretion to modify a disciplinary decision of a police chief by imposing a stricter penalty than the one imposed by the chief. Conversely, the authority to modify carries with it discretion to decrease the penalty. The result dictated by Pool is further supported by cases analyzing city charters which were instituted before RCW 41.14.110, but which contained similar language. State ex rel. Perry v. Seattle, 69 Wn.2d 816, 820, 420 P.2d 704 (1966); State ex rel. Perry v. Seattle, 62 Wn.2d 891, 892, 384 P.2d 874 (1963); State ex rel. Wolcott v. Boyington, 110 Wash. 622, 626, 188 P. 777 (1920). See also Deer-[273]*273ing v. Seattle, 10 Wn. App. 832, 836, 520 P.2d 638, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1050 (1974).

As to the sheriff's second contention, we have reviewed the record and find the imposition of the lesser penalty here to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. See RCW 34.04.130(6)(f); Pool v. Omak, supra at 846 n.1. See also Helland v. King Cy. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 84 Wn.2d 858, 863, 529 P.2d 1058 (1975); Greig v. Metzler, 33 Wn. App. 223, 226, 653 P.2d 1346 (1982); Benavides v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 26 Wn. App. 531, 534, 613 P.2d 807 (1980); Porter v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 12 Wn. App. 767, 769-70, 532 P.2d 296 (1975); In re Hahn, 12 Wn. App. 243, 529 P.2d 484 (1974).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Benavides v. Civil Service Commission of Selah
613 P.2d 807 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1980)
Helland v. King County Civil Service Commission
529 P.2d 1058 (Washington Supreme Court, 1975)
Greig v. Metzler
653 P.2d 1346 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1982)
Deering v. City of Seattle
520 P.2d 638 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1974)
State Ex Rel. Perry v. City of Seattle
420 P.2d 704 (Washington Supreme Court, 1966)
State Ex Rel. Perry v. City of Seattle
384 P.2d 874 (Washington Supreme Court, 1963)
State ex rel. Wolcott v. Boyington
188 P. 777 (Washington Supreme Court, 1920)
In re the Appeal of Hahn
529 P.2d 484 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1974)
Porter v. Civil Service Commission
532 P.2d 296 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1975)
Pool v. City of Omak
678 P.2d 343 (Court of Appeals of Washington, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
39 Wash. App. 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/erickson-v-spokane-county-civil-service-commission-washctapp-1984.