# Claremont Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Claremont

> California Supreme Court · August 14, 2006 · 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 69

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789124

## Case

- **Full name:** CLAREMONT POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF CLAREMONT Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 14, 2006
- **Citations:** 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 69; 39 Cal. 4th 623; 139 P.3d 532; 180 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2472; 2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7440; 2006 Cal. LEXIS 9518
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Moreno
- **Judges:** Chin, Moreno
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789124

## Opinion text

MORENO, J., Concurring.
I agree with the majority’s narrow holding that the City of Claremont (City) need not meet and confer regarding its decision to conduct a racial profiling study and to adopt a particular data collection method in implementing the study, and that we need not consider other issues raised by the Claremont Police Officers Association (Association). As the majority states: “Based on the limited record before us, there is no evidence regarding what effects would result from implementing the Study; for instance, whether the data collected and later analyzed will result in discipline if an officer is found to have engaged in racial profiling, or whether the City will publicize the Study’s raw data. It is also not clear from the record what exact methodology the City has adopted to analyze the collected data to determine any racial profiling. Nor can we say that racial profiling studies have been so historically associated with employee discipline that their implementation invariably raises disciplinary issues. (Cf. Holliday [v. City of Modesto (1991)] 229 Cal.App.3d [528,] 540 [ 280 Cal.Rptr. 206 ] [various details of implementing mandatory drug testing policy subject to meet-and-confer requirement].) Thus, we do not decide the issue whether the City was required to meet and confer with the Association over any effects resulting from the City’s decision to implement the Study.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 634, *640 fn. omitted.) Instead, the majority addresses only “the City’s implementation of the Study, requiring officers to fill out the Forms in order to collect data on possible racial profiling.” (Id. at p. 635.)
That having been said, it is no doubt true that the study results may potentially be used to discipline police officers or may have other adverse employment consequences for them, because racial profiling is a serious form of police misconduct. In my view, the use of the study as an additional basis for discipline would give rise to a duty on the City’s part to meet and confer with the Association. The City’s adoption of a new basis for disciplining police officers goes to the heart of officers’ employment security, and is therefore one of the critical “terms and conditions of employment” at the core of Government Code section 3504 . (See Fire Fighters Union v. City of Vallejo (1974) 12 Cal.3d 608, 618 [ 116 Cal.Rptr. 507 , 526 P.2d 971 ].) Although the City plainly has the authority and responsibility to discipline officers who persistently engage in racial profiling, its unfettered right to do so does not outweigh the Association’s interest in ensuring, through negotiations with the City, that any such discipline follows due process and that the study results have been accurately and fairly analyzed.
Kennard, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9789124. Public record. Not legal advice.