## Facts

- The City of Santa Ana and the Santa Ana Police Benevolent Association (PBA) were negotiating a new memorandum of understanding under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act after the prior agreement expired.
- During negotiations in July 1987, large numbers of police officers called in sick in a clustered pattern across multiple shifts:
  - July 9: 16 of 18 graveyard-shift officers called in sick, requiring others to work overtime.
  - Later that day: 41 evening-shift officers called in sick.
  - Next morning: 83 day-shift officers reported illness; staffing was maintained through overtime and extended shifts.
- The City characterized the coordinated absenteeism as an unlawful work stoppage designed to pressure the City in bargaining.
- The City obtained a temporary restraining order barring striking and absence “claiming illness when not ill.”
- The trial court later issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting striking, inducing a strike, work stoppages (including slowdowns), and being absent claiming illness when not ill “in the nature of a strike.”
- The PBA appealed the preliminary injunction; while the appeal was pending, the parties reached a new agreement and the job action had ended.

## Issues

1. Whether police officers may lawfully engage in a coordinated “sick-out” during labor negotiations.
2. Whether a coordinated sick-out may be treated as a strike or work stoppage even if police services continue through overtime staffing.
3. Whether a court may issue injunctive relief to prevent such conduct by public safety employees.
4. Whether the appeal was moot after the sick-out ended and a new agreement was reached.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the preliminary injunction.
- The court held the appeal was not moot because the legality of police sick-outs is a recurring public issue that typically evades full appellate review before becoming moot.
- The court concluded the July 1987 sick-out was a concerted job action functionally equivalent to a strike or work stoppage.
- The court held police officers have no lawful right to strike, and the sick-out could be enjoined.
- The injunction was upheld as properly directed at strike-like conduct and feigned illness, not legitimate use of sick leave.

## Legal Principles

- Public employees in essential public safety roles, including police officers, lack a lawful right to strike; coordinated job actions that interrupt or degrade public safety services are unlawful.
- A coordinated “sick-out” may be treated as the practical equivalent of a strike or work stoppage when its timing and pattern indicate concerted action rather than genuine illness.
- Courts have equitable authority to enjoin unlawful strike-equivalents by public employees to protect continuous and effective delivery of essential public services.
- In determining the need for injunctive relief, a court may consider risks created by forced overtime and officer fatigue, even if minimum staffing is maintained.
- A dispute may be decided despite cessation of the challenged conduct when the issue presents continuing public importance and is likely to recur yet evade timely appellate review.

## Conclusion

The court upheld injunctive relief against a police-union-organized sick-out, treating coordinated absenteeism as an unlawful strike-equivalent that may be restrained to protect continuous public safety services, and it resolved the case under the public-interest exception to mootness.


City of Santa Ana v. Santa Ana Police Benevolent Ass'n, 207 Cal. App. 3d 1568 (Ct. App. 1989)