A California Appellate Court Rules That the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act Does Not Apply to a Police Officer’s Termination for Failing to Meet a COVID-19 Vaccination Qualification

10.19.2026

On October 15, 2026, a California appellate court ruled that the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Gov. Code, § 3300 et seq.) (“POBRA”) does not apply to a vaccination requirement imposed on all employees as a qualification for employment. (Cruz v. City of Hermosa Beach, No. B343086, 2026 WL 3093028 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2026)) In the published portion of its opinion, the court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that a police officer terminated for failing to comply with such a requirement was not subjected to “punitive action” within the meaning of POBRA. The City of Hermosa Beach (“City”) and the Hermosa Beach Police Department had terminated Officer Jonathan Cruz after he failed to comply with a COVID-19 vaccination requirement and was denied a religious exemption.

In September 2021, the Hermosa Beach City Council adopted a policy requiring all City employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 12, 2021, as a condition of employment (the “Policy”), stating that vaccination was “an effective safety measure” to protect the health and safety of City staff and the public. The Policy permitted employees to seek a religious or medical exemption through an interactive process and warned that employees “in non-compliance will be subject to separation from employment.” Cruz, a police officer employed by the City since 2009, requested a religious exemption on October 1, 2021. After the interactive process, the City denied the request on January 5, 2022, finding it was not based on a sincerely held religious belief and, alternatively, that an accommodation would impose an “undue hardship”. When Cruz did not provide proof of vaccination by the City’s deadline, the City issued a Notice of Forfeiture of Employment on February 22, 2022, expressly stating the separation “was not disciplinary,” and terminated his employment on March 9, 2022. The City later denied Cruz’s request for a post-termination administrative appeal, concluding the non-disciplinary forfeiture fell outside POBRA. Cruz sued for violation of POBRA and for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and the trial court granted the City summary judgment.

POBRA prohibits a public agency from undertaking any “punitive action” against a public safety officer without providing an opportunity for administrative appeal and defines “punitive action” as “any action that may lead to dismissal, demotion, suspension, reduction in salary, written reprimand, or transfer for purposes of punishment.” Whether an agency’s action is “punitive action” is a question of statutory construction that the court reviewed de novo. On appeal, Cruz contended that his termination for failing to comply with the vaccination mandate was a “per se dismissal” that triggered POBRA. The court disagreed.

Drawing on California Supreme Court authority, the court explained that not all employment terminations are “dismissals” for purposes of POBRA. Rather, POBRA provides procedural safeguards for officers “accused of misconduct in the course of their employment,” or otherwise facing punitive action arising from an investigation into their ability to perform their duties. Here, the record showed the City did not terminate Cruz “because he engaged in any workplace misconduct or performed poorly.” Instead, the Policy “specifically affected the qualifications for employment, which are not regulated by POBRA,” and the court emphasized that POBRA “is not intended to regulate or restrict the appointment of police officers” or to interfere with an agency’s right to set peace officers’ qualifications for employment. Because the City terminated Cruz for failing to meet a minimum job qualification — proof of vaccination or a qualifying exemption — rather than for punishment, his termination was not “punitive action,” and his POBRA claim failed as a matter of law. Cruz’s derivative claim for declaratory relief under POBRA failed for the same reason.

In an unpublished portion of its opinion, which is not citable as precedent under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, the court also affirmed summary judgment on Cruz’s retaliation claims. On the Labor Code section 1102.5 claim, the court applied the “same-decision defense” codified in Labor Code section 1102.6, concluding the City showed by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated Cruz for legitimate, independent reasons regardless of any protected activity. On the FEHA claim, the court held that the City’s denial of an administrative appeal to which Cruz was not entitled could not constitute an “adverse employment action.” The court affirmed the summary judgment in full.

The Cruz ruling demonstrates that a public safety agency may enforce a neutral, generally applicable condition of employment — such as a vaccination requirement imposed on all employees — without triggering POBRA’s procedural protections, provided the resulting separation is a non-disciplinary forfeiture for failing to meet a job qualification rather than punishment for misconduct. Public employers should frame and document such measures as employment qualifications, keep the separation non-disciplinary in substance and in the record, and complete any applicable interactive or accommodation process before separation. The published portions of the opinion are citable as controlling authority; the retaliation analysis is not. If you have any questions regarding this alert, please contact the authors of this article or your current AALRR counsel.