Before reading this opinion, I had never heard of Pamela Palmieri. She was just one of many attorneys hired by California to prosecute various disciplinary cases against prison guards. She allegedly had some problems at her job, so California fired her. She appealed her dismissal, the lower tribunals ultimately affirmed her dismissal, and she promptly took the thing to the Court of Appeal.
Prompting this opinion, which (1) affirms her dismissal, (2) requires her to pay court costs in favor of the California Board, and (3) issues a published opinion that explains to the world precisely what Ms. Palmieri did and why she was fired.
Not a great Halloween treat, to be sure. At least for Ms. Palmieri. (It's probably a treat for the Board, but that's a fairly amorphous body, not someone with actual feelings.)
I'll leave it you the reader to check out the opinion to learn the things that got Ms. Palmieri fired. Suffice it to say that her nickname is probably not "Prompt Palmieri," at least when it comes to attending various court hearings and other things on time. ("The OAH ALJ found Palmieri returned late “numerous” times “not just a few minutes
late, but substantially longer.” He found her tardiness was “extreme.”) A reader may also infer that she perhaps has some temper issues that she may want to work out in a more constructive fashion. (On Friday, April 30, 2010, at 4:30 p.m., Palmieri severely abused a coworker (N.)
in the personnel office. She began yelling about a mistake with the withholding in her
paycheck, she swore, she pounded her fist, and called the employees “terrible.” When N.
said she would look into the problem “Palmieri responded that [N.] should make it fast
because she was parked at a meter.” N. found an error in Palmieri’s paycheck but did not
return to the counter immediately because she was upset and crying. . . . N. “described Palmieri’s behavior as the most [abusive] and aggressive she
has experienced in 15 years” in human resources. The OAH ALJ found Palmieri’s
“screaming, demanding, and profanity laced tirade at the personnel staff was outrageous
and cruel.”"
Plus there's that whole alleged "dishonesty" thing. (Side note: It's never good when an opinion about you in the Court of Appeal recites various bad facts about you and then adds a paragraph that begins with the sentence: "And there was more.") Culminating in a sentence that reads "We agree with Palmieri that some of her conduct, such as
misleading a quasi-judicial officer, may well present grounds for the State Bar to
investigate her."
Oopsies. Not exactly something that you want to see in a published opinion.
So be careful what you wish for. On the upside, the Court of Appeal definitely investigated your complaints and came to a conclusion. Unfortunately for Ms. Palmieri (whose prior disciplinary record via the Bar can be seen here), the conclusion it reached was not exactly in her favor.
And it told the world in published opinion why.
