Despite denial of an attorney at initial investigation interview for excessive force complaint, police officer could not state a claim based on the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act since he retained his prior employment at his same salary and thus suffered no adverse employment action. A police officer was interviewed twice about an excessive force complaint, the first time without an attorney present contrary to the Police Bill of Rights Act but the second time with an attorney present. Though initially terminated as a result of the investigation, the police officer was reinstated to his prior employment as a field training officer at the same salary. He could not state a claim for violation of the Bill of Rights Act because he had suffered no adverse employment action as a result of the denial of an attorney at the first investigation interview, even though he was relieved of collateral duties as a member of the police honor guard and SWAT team and was assigned no officers to train.
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 3 (Fybel, J.); October 20, 2016 (published November 9, 2016); 2016 WL 6609753