What is the test for improperly dismissing a jury foreperson?

Appellant argues that the court denied his federal and state constitutional right to trial by a fair and impartial jury by improperly dismissing the jury foreperson without good cause. Appellant contends the foreperson was replaced because his logic and analysis was faulty, and he was misapplying the law to the facts. As support for this contention, appellant cites People v. Cleveland (2001) 25 Cal.4th 466, 485, which provides that neither failure to deliberate well nor reliance upon faulty logic or analysis constitute a refusal to deliberate. However, unlike the juror in Cleveland, the foreperson here was not charged with refusing to deliberate.