Attorney Robert Torres appeared on behalf of Police Sgt. James C. Deleon Guerrero and 25 other police officers during a hearing on Aug. 14.
Assistant Attorney General Meaghan Hassel-Shearer represented the government.
Wiseman denied the DPS motion to dismiss and the motion for a more definitive statement without prejudice.
He ordered both parties to appear for a status conference to discuss the details of an evidentiary hearing and other matters at 1:30 p.m. on Oct. 1, 2009.
Deleon Guerrero, DPS safety communication and technology section officer-in-charge, filed a petition for judicial review of agency decision to his grievances against the DPS on May 9, 2009, alleging that DPS failed to comply with the promotion, salary/merit increase, and competitive selection process regulations prescribed by law.
On June 23, the court granted Deleon Guerrero’s motion to include 26 police officers who joined the petition.
DPS filed the motion to dismiss or for a more definitive statement.
Deleon Guerrero and the other police officers stated that during the past 10 years, DPS unlawfully hired or promoted Alfred Celes, Paul T. Ogumoro and Vicente Tagabuel when there was an austerity measure suspending pay increases and promotions in effect.
DPS in turn argued that it voluntarily demoted Celis to police officer 2 so that the issue is now moot.
Celes filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission and was reinstated as a sergeant.
In his ruling, Wiseman stated that the DPS motion to dismiss “is solely aimed at attacking the pleadings.”
But Deleon Guerrero seeks additional relief and asked the court to issue an order to prohibit DPS from engaging in discriminatory practices and compelling compliance with the Personnel Service Rules and Regulations and competitive selection process.
He is also seeking an order requiring DPS to conduct an audit of all civil service employees to evaluate and assess their duties and responsibilities.
“Based on the factual allegations in the petition regarding DPS hiring, promotion, salary practices, it is reasonable to conclude that the motion to dismiss is premature and must be denied,” Wiseman said.
He added that the DPS motion for a more definitive statement “presents a unique procedural status.”
“At this stage, the appellants may actually be unable to determine on what basis they have been allegedly discriminated against and anything more specific could be speculative,” Wiseman said.
