Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV01427, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV01427    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On January 13, 2022, Plaintiff John Michael Gardner initiated this employment discrimination action against Defendants County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department and County of Los Angeles. The operative First Amended Complaint, filed May 27, 2022, adds Sheriff Alex Villanueva as a Defendant and alleges the following causes of action: (1) retaliation; (2) harassment; (3) discrimination; (4) failure to take corrective action; (5) PAGA; (6) Bane Act; and (7) retaliation under Government Code section 53298.

            Plaintiff was hired by the County as a civilian Security Assistant in May 2012 and promoted to Law Enforcement Technician in January 2016. (FAC ¶ 16.) In April 2017, Plaintiff filed an internal Policy of Equality (“POE”) complaint against a female coworker, Heather Fuquay, for sexual harassment after Ms. Fuquay asked Plaintiff to view her computer while she was browsing pornographic material. (Id., ¶ 20.) In May 2017, Plaintiff was relieved of duty and subjected to a disciplinary investigation, allegedly as retaliation for filing the POE complaint. (Id., ¶ 22.) Plaintiff was subjected to further investigations from 2017 through 2019, one of which resulted in an additional suspension, and another which prevented Plaintiff from obtaining a desired transfer until Plaintiff successfully objected. (Id., ¶¶ 31-37, 50, 59.)      

            In March 2020, Plaintiff filed an anonymous complaint with the County’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) alleging COVID safety violations. (FAC ¶¶ 62-63.) Plaintiff alleges that he was forced to reveal himself as the anonymous complainer after a supervisor threatened legal action against the complainer for illegal impersonation. (Id., ¶¶ 66-69.) Although the supervisor promised Plaintiff that he would not be subjected to any scrutiny, one week later, Plaintiff’s credentials were frozen, and he was involuntarily transferred. (Id., ¶¶ 70-71.) In April 2020, Defendants opened an investigation into Plaintiff for filing a false OIG complaint. (Id., ¶ 75.) In June 2020, Plaintiff had his duties reduced to administrative roles. (Id., ¶ 79.)

            Around September 2021, Plaintiff was restricted from entering the Hall of Justice, purportedly because he had made a hostile phone call to the Sheriff’s Information Bureau. (FAC ¶ 94.) That same month, Plaintiff filed a POE complaint against the officers responsible for spreading the false rumor that Plaintiff placed a hostile phone call. (Id., ¶ 97.) Plaintiff filed this action in January 2022 and was fired in March 2022. (Id., ¶¶ 101-103.)

            On December 5, 2022, Defendant County of Los Angeles filed the instant motion to stay the proceedings pending an administrative hearing that Plaintiff initiated after filing this lawsuit.  

LEGAL STANDARD

“Courts have inherent authority to control their own calendars and dockets . . . .” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267.) This includes “the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.)  

DISCUSSION

            “The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the relitigating of issues which were previously resolved in an administrative hearing by an agency acting in a judicial capacity.” (Knickerbocker v. City of Stockton (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 235, 242.) This preclusive effect applies to administrative proceedings to determine the wrongfulness of a discharge. (Castillo v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 477, 481.) “Public employees have the benefit of the civil service commission process to redress discrimination, which is less costly and protracted than litigation. Though a public employee may choose to bypass the administrative process, if she pursues it through evidentiary hearings to a proposed decision, then she has the burden to exhaust administrative and judicial remedies notwithstanding the risk that a FEHA claim may no longer be viable.” (Page v. Los Angeles County Probation Dept. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1143-44.) When an employee decides to pursue the civil service commission process, she is “not then free to ignore and abandon the administrative process and proceed to a FEHA action for damages.” (Id. at p. 1142.)

            After filing this lawsuit, Plaintiff requested a Civil Service hearing alleging that his discharge was made in violation of Civil Service Rule 25, which prohibits discrimination based on non-merit factors. (Contreras Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Defendant maintains that it terminated Plaintiff for legitimate reasons because Plaintiff violated department policies. Although Plaintiff’s lawsuit is not entirely premised on his termination, the Commission’s determination may still have preclusive effect on the issues in this action. An employer may defeat a FEHA discrimination or retaliation charge by establishing that it took adverse employment actions against the plaintiff for legitimate reasons. (Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908, 926.) The proffered reasons for Plaintiff’s discharge—i.e., policy violations—may apply to other adverse employment actions as well, such as investigations and discipline. If the Commission determines whether Plaintiff violated certain department policies, the parties would be precluded from arguing otherwise in this action, thus narrowing the issues in dispute.

For example, Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against for filing the OIG complaint regarding COVID safety violations, but Defendant maintains that Plaintiff was investigated and terminated for impersonating another employee in filing the complaint. A determination by the Commission on whether Plaintiff did indeed impersonate another employee would have preclusive effect on the FEHA, PAGA, and Government Code claims based on the same OIG complaint. (See FAC ¶¶ 120, 166, 192.)   

Lastly, the validity of Plaintiff’s termination itself is at issue in both the Civil Service hearing and this action. Plaintiff identically alleges in both the Rule 25 complaint and the FAC that he was discharged for discriminatory reasons. Since the Commission will make a determination on this, it is in the interests of justice and judicial efficiency to stay the action until that determination is made. (See Freiberg, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 1489.) Even if the Commission’s determination will not dispose of every issue in this action, it still serves judicial economy to narrow the issues in dispute and avoid inconsistent findings.  

Plaintiff will not be prejudiced because he is the one who chose to initiate administrative proceedings after filing this lawsuit. Plaintiff must now exhaust the administrative remedy before continuing with the lawsuit. (See Page, supra, 123 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1143-44.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion for stay is GRANTED.