Profile of Justice Margaret M. Grignon

Copyright and Trademark Notice | Disclaimer | Revised: 9/15/99

Use the Profile Comment Form to submit your own impressions for inclusion on this page.

Court: California Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Five

Appointed by: Governor Deukmejian, 1990

Born: October 17, 1950 in Plainfield, New Jersey

Education: BA, UCLA 1972; JD, Loyola 1977

Law Practice: O'Melveny & Myers (1978-81); Gray Cary (1981-82)

Judicial Appointments: Antelope Municipal Court (1984-87); Los Angeles County Superior Court (1987-90); Second District Court of Appeal (1990-present)

Opinions Reported in Appellate Decisions Noted:

• Two decisions explain sexual harassment claims under FEHA
• Proposition 213 restrictions apply to uninsured motorist injured while exiting his parked car

Additional Sources of Information:

• Justice Grignon's biography at the California Courts site

Comments from Visitors to the Appellate Counsellor Home Page:

Ronald Williams (11/14/97)

On May 10, 1991, Margaret M. Grignon, in the capacity if a Justice of the State Appeals Court, issued a published, binding opinion that represents a slap in the face of every law enforcement officer within the State. Williams vs. City of Los Angeles, 229 Cal.App. 3d 1627. It hold that police officers who are terminated from the higher ranks within a police department, can become a retired member within a pension system plan. As such retired member, such terminated police officer is without any right to sue the terminating police agency, in any court, to remedy the termination. Justice Grignon and the co-authors of the "Williams, 1991" decision were apparently so focused of depriving "Williams" of his State held rights [under Cal.Govt.Cd. 3309.5 et seq] that she and the co-authors held littlt regard that publishing such an unconscionable decision, adversely affects similarly situated police officers throughout the State.

Justice Grignon and the co-authors should be advised that Williams vs. City of Los Angeles, 229 Cal.App.3d 1627 (May 10, 1991), has since been extended by the unscrupulous City's attorneys, as having preemption authority over the U.S. Constitution and Federal Laws. In Williams vs City of Los Angeles, CV-90-1252 AWT, the "Grignon" decision has since been enforced as preemption authority over Willaims' federal claims, based upon his employment termination. Due to the pervasive manner that Grignon and the co-authors crafted the Williams' decision, the City successfully misrepresented its' ad- judicated facts and Williams vs. City of LA, 229 Cal.App.3d 1627 (May 10, 1991), as having also affirmed Williams to have voluntarily surrendered his position of employment. The City, in federal court, litigated, successfully, it had never subject Williams to an employment ter- mination. This is what flows from a biased State appeals court, assisting and sanctioning the unconscionable behavior of a public safety employer.

If Grignon and Boren had any real sense of justice, as are their titles, each would assist with the eradication - undoing of Williams vs City of LA, 229 Cal.App.3d 1627 (May 10, 199). Notwithstanding what these justices had against Williams, what do they have against police officers of the State. I'm sure each agrees that police officers too, have the right to access to a court to challenge a termination. And, this right cannot be sold in exchange for a pension.

Anonymous (9/14/99)

Crude. Lazy. Right wing. Abrasive. She joins with Turner to make Division Five the most disturbing division in California. It is constitutional and intellectual fraud

Privacy Policy

URL for this page http://www.appellate-counsellor.com/profiles/grignon.htm