Firm Home · Legal Resources · Law Updates
Cruz v. City of Hermosa Beach
California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five · 2026 · Partially published opinion (PDF)
Summary for general education only—not legal advice. This is not a Workplace Rights Advocacy case result. See Case Results for the firm’s own verdicts and settlements.
A partially published California Court of Appeal decision about the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA, Government Code § 3300 et seq.), which gives police officers and other public safety officers the right to an administrative appeal before “punitive action” such as dismissal. In September 2021, the City of Hermosa Beach required every City employee to be vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment, with religious and medical exemptions available through an interactive process. Jonathan Cruz, a Hermosa Beach police officer since 2009, requested a religious exemption. The City denied it, finding his request was not based on a sincerely held religious belief and, alternatively, that accommodating him would be an undue hardship. When he did not provide proof of vaccination, the City issued a non-disciplinary notice of forfeiture of employment, held a conference with Cruz and his lawyer, and terminated him in March 2022. It then refused his request for a POBRA administrative appeal. Cruz sued under POBRA, Labor Code § 1102.5, and the FEHA. The Los Angeles Superior Court granted summary judgment for the City, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.
In the published part of the opinion, the court held that a termination for failing a vaccination requirement imposed on all employees as an employment qualification is not a POBRA “punitive action.” Cruz relied on the California Supreme Court’s decision in White v. County of Sacramento, which treats dismissals, demotions, suspensions, pay cuts, and written reprimands as penalties “no matter for what reason imposed.” The court read White as limited to action taken against an individual officer, noting that the Supreme Court itself distinguished situations such as mass layoffs. POBRA’s history and case law show it protects officers who are under investigation or facing discipline over misconduct, performance, or fitness for duty. It does not regulate an agency’s qualifications for employment. The City did not fire Cruz for misconduct or poor performance; it fired him because he did not meet a job requirement that applied to everyone. The court expressly did not decide whether the City acted unlawfully in denying his religious exemption, because Cruz did not make that claim in this lawsuit.
In the unpublished parts of the opinion, which California courts generally cannot cite as precedent, the court also rejected his retaliation claims. The City showed by clear and convincing evidence that it would have fired him anyway for not complying with the vaccine requirement, a complete defense to a Labor Code § 1102.5 whistleblower claim. His later letters came after he was already fired, so they could not have caused it. Denying a POBRA appeal he was not entitled to was not an adverse employment action under the FEHA. Because the trial court did not find the FEHA claim frivolous, the City was not awarded appeal costs on that claim.
In plain English: POBRA’s appeal rights are aimed at discipline. An officer who is fired for misconduct, poor performance, or unfitness for duty is generally entitled to a POBRA administrative appeal. An officer who is separated for failing a qualification that applies to every employee may not be, even though the result is the same loss of the job. Officers who believe a religious-exemption or accommodation denial was wrong should raise that directly as a religious discrimination or failure-to-accommodate claim, rather than relying only on POBRA procedure. Compare Smith v. Burbank Unified School District, which addressed the merits of a FEHA religious-accommodation claim arising from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Related practice pages: religious discrimination, Labor Code § 1102.5 retaliation, and first responders.
Related: First Responders · Government Employees · Religious Discrimination · Failure to Accommodate · Labor Code 1102.5 · Retaliation Claims