Nathaniel Partridge, a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer since 2006 assigned to the East Los Angeles office, regularly worked overtime shifts through the Maintenance Zone Enhanced Enforcement Program (MAZEEP), under which Caltrans reimburses the CHP for traffic-enforcement services on highway maintenance projects. Under a standard operating procedure the office adopted in 2012, an officer released early from a MAZEEP detail could still be paid for the full scheduled shift, but only if the officer remained on standby at the station rather than going home. Partridge knew the policy but believed, based on common office practice and a since-retired lieutenant’s own understanding, that going home after early release was tolerated as long as an officer could return if called back.

On September 17, 2017, Partridge’s MAZEEP assignment ended at 10:20 a.m., roughly four hours before its scheduled 2:30 p.m. end time. Partridge returned his patrol vehicle, changed out of uniform, and drove the 35 miles to his home rather than remaining at the station. He was never called back. He nonetheless submitted time records claiming the full 10 hours of scheduled overtime, receiving $288.98 in pay for roughly three hours and 45 minutes he had not worked or remained available for. A 2019 MAZEEP program audit also found that on eight separate occasions in 2017 and 2018, Partridge had failed to record the time he returned his patrol vehicle on a separate vehicle-checkout form, though the CHP’s own investigation did not tie those omissions to any additional false overtime claims. Partridge admitted the September 2017 conduct during the investigation, telling investigators, “I took the chance to go home and would fall on the consequence if I was called back.”

The CHP dismissed Partridge in February 2020 for inexcusable neglect of duty, dishonesty, misuse of state property, violating the state’s incompatible-activities statute, and other failure of good behavior, all grounds for discipline under Government Code section 19572. Partridge appealed to the State Personnel Board (SPB). An administrative law judge (ALJ) found Partridge’s incomplete vehicle forms constituted inexcusable neglect of duty, but credited Partridge’s testimony that he did not intend to deceive the CHP about his September 2017 overtime claim, dismissed the remaining charges, and reduced the penalty to a one-month suspension. The SPB itself rejected the ALJ’s credibility findings on the dishonesty question, concluding Partridge knowingly claimed pay for hours he had not worked and was not entitled to, and sustained all the charged grounds for discipline. Applying the multi-factor test from Skelly v. State Personnel Board for assessing an appropriate penalty, however, the SPB found dismissal disproportionate given the isolated nature of the incident and Partridge’s 16 years of discipline-free service, and imposed a one-year unpaid suspension instead.

The CHP petitioned the Los Angeles County Superior Court for a writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, seeking to vacate the SPB’s penalty and reinstate the dismissal. The trial court denied the petition, finding the SPB had not abused its discretion in concluding that a single, if serious, act of dishonesty did not necessarily establish a propensity for future dishonesty warranting termination. The CHP appealed.

In the published case of California Highway Patrol v. California State Personnel Board, No. B336135 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 8, August 2026) — the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment denying the CHP’s petition for writ of mandate. This opinion was originally filed on July 29, 2026 and was not initially certified for publication; on August 5, 2026, the Second Appellate District, Division Eight, ordered it published in the Official Reports with no change in the judgment. It is now citable authority.

Writing for a unanimous panel, Presiding Justice Stratton explained that a court reviewing an administrative agency’s choice of penalty may not substitute its own judgment for the agency’s, and may disturb the penalty only in the exceptional case where reasonable minds could not differ on the appropriate discipline, citing Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 and Cate v. State Personnel Board (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 270. The panel rejected the CHP’s central argument that Partridge’s dishonesty alone mandated dismissal as a matter of law, explaining that while termination is an available and often appropriate penalty for employee dishonesty, no California authority requires it in every case. The court distinguished Kolender v. San Diego County Civil Service Commission (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 716, which the CHP relied on for the proposition that dishonesty reflects an ongoing character trait rather than an isolated event, on its facts: the officer in Kolender had lied to cover up a fellow deputy’s physical abuse of a jail inmate and maintained that lie until investigators independently uncovered it, conduct the panel found categorically different from Partridge’s single, ultimately admitted overtime claim.

The panel likewise rejected the CHP’s argument that the SPB improperly minimized Partridge’s misconduct by comparing it to other officers dismissed for more extensive, repeated MAZEEP overtime fraud. The court explained the SPB used those comparisons only to illustrate why Partridge’s isolated incident did not itself establish a disposition toward dishonesty, not to suggest that repeat offenders set the baseline for termination. The panel found the SPB’s broader weighing of the Skelly factors — harm to public service, the circumstances of the misconduct, and the likelihood of recurrence — was well within its discretion, noting Partridge’s clean 16-year disciplinary record and positive performance history were legitimate considerations, not, as the CHP argued, an improper attempt to offset dishonesty against unrelated good conduct. The court found no fault in the SPB’s related conclusion that Partridge’s separate failures to log his patrol vehicle’s return time on eight occasions reflected carelessness rather than a deliberate scheme to conceal his early departures, since overtime pay was calculated from a different form entirely and none of the omissions was tied to an actual false claim.

The panel also addressed, and rejected, the CHP’s suggestion that upholding the SPB’s decision would perversely reward officers who limit the scope of their misconduct relative to more egregious violators. The court held this policy argument did not establish an abuse of discretion in the specific penalty selected here, citing County of Siskiyou v. State Personnel Board (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1606, which likewise held dismissal is not required in every dishonesty case. The panel acknowledged the trial court’s separate observation that Partridge’s dishonesty finding will follow him for the remainder of his career under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, requiring disclosure to defense counsel in any future case where he is a witness, but agreed that consequence did not by itself compel dismissal rather than a severe suspension. Concluding that reasonable minds could differ — and, indeed, had differed, given the ALJ’s initial one-month recommendation, the SPB’s ultimate one-year suspension, and the CHP’s request for outright dismissal — the panel held this was not the exceptional case warranting judicial override of the agency’s chosen penalty, and affirmed the judgment, awarding costs on appeal to the SPB and Partridge.