Dept. of Human Resources v. Cal. Correctional Peace Officers etc.

── Dept. of Human Resources v. Cal. Correctional Peace Officers etc. ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General Filed 5/15/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES et al., C100353 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. v. 34202200327434CUPAGDS) CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, Christopher E. Krueger, Judge. Reversed with directions. Janice R. Shaw, Karly K. McCrory, Suzanne L. Jiminez, Anthony P. Donoghue and Jennifer Ragan; Benedon & Serlin, Gerald M. Serlin and Judith E. Posner for Defendant and Appellant. Frolan R. Aguiling, Sandra L. Lusich, Christopher E. Thomas, David M. Villalba and Ronald Pearson for Plaintiffs and Respondents. J. Felix De La Torre, Joseph W. Eckhart, James E. Coffey and Christina M. Nielsen for Public Employment Relations Board as Amicus Curiae. Tracylyn Lopez (Lopez), a correctional officer and union representative at Salinas Valley State Prison (the prison), received a notice of adverse action for directing 1 profanity at two other officers. 1 She later posted materials from the disciplinary action on a union bulletin board near the main entrance to the prison. The posted materials revealed the nature of the discipline against Lopez, and the unique surnames of the other officers. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Department of Human Resources (collectively, CDCR) suspended Lopez for 60 workdays for the posting. Lopez appealed the discipline to the State Personnel Board (SPB), arguing the posting served as commentary on CDCR’s disciplinary practices, and was thus protected by the First Amendment. She also filed a contractual grievance alleging the discipline violated the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between respondent California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) and the State of California, which incorporates the Ralph C. Dills Act (Gov. Code, § 3512 et seq.; Dills Act) and prohibits retaliation for engaging in protected activities. 2 CCPOA, which represents correctional officers, sought arbitration of the grievance on Lopez’s behalf. This appeal arises at the intersection between these proceedings. The SPB ruled for CDCR in October 2020. The SPB acknowledged Lopez’s right to express opinions about disciplinary matters, but found the posting fostered a “code of silence,” and thus constituted an inexcusable neglect of duty and failure of good behavior (§ 19572, subds. (d) & (t)), which justified the 60-workday suspension. 3 Whether the 1 Lopez is not a party to this appeal. 2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. 3 The code of silence is an unwritten rule that correctional officers do not report on misconduct by other officers. (See generally Madrid v. Gomez (E.D.Cal. 1995) 889 F.Supp. 1146, 1156 [describing the “unwritten but widely understood code” designed to “encourage prison employees to remain silent regarding the improper behavior of their fellow employees, particularly where excessive force has been alleged”].) 2 discipline constituted retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the MOU and Dills Act was not an issue before the SPB. That issue was reserved for the arbitration proceedings, which took place some 18 months later. An arbitrator entered an award in favor of Lopez and CCPOA in June 2022. The arbitrator sustained the grievance, finding CDCR violated the MOU by discriminating and interfering with protected speech and representational activity. She rejected CDCR’s argument that Lopez lost any potential protectio