By Jannah Manansala and Kerianne Steele
Jannah Manansala is a shareholder at Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld in Alameda. She represents labor unions and workers in both the public and private sector in state and federal court, in arbitration and in administrative hearings. In addition to practicing law, she has taught Labor Policy and Law at Cal State University, East Bay. Kerianne Steele is also a shareholder of the firm. She provides general representation to labor unions, primarily in the public sector.
Olson v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist., 17 Cal. App. 5th 1052 (2017)
A school district employee pursued causes of action for defamation and deceit against a school district and its superintendent. The court of appeal found that the trial court properly dismissed the operative complaint after sustaining the district's demurrer to the pleading on the ground that the employee's grievance, filed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, did not satisfy the claim filing requirements of the Government Claims Act, Government Code §§ 810-999.6. The court found that the employee failed to comply with the Government Claims Act's requirements and that his noncompliance was not excused. It was undisputed that the employee never filed a claim with the district on a government claim form.
The court also held that the doctrine of substantial compliance did not apply, because the operative complaint failed to allege that the employee served or attempted to serve a claim on any responsible officer of the district.
The court further held that, even if the employee's grievance could be deemed to constitute a claim, the content of the grievance did not substantially comply with the act's requirements, because it omitted material facts and failed to apprise the school district of the nature of the claim so that it might investigate and settle those having merit without litigation. The court concluded that the grievance also was not a "claim as presented," because it did not disclose the existence of a claim against the district which, if not resolved, would result in litigation.
The employee claimed that he should be excused from filing a government claim on the ground that it would have been futile, but the court rejected that argument because a futile claim is not statutorily excepted from the claim filing requirements at issue. Although the court noted that futility is an exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement, the claim filing requirement is not an administrative remedy.
Finally, the court found that application of the futility doctrine would contravene the purposes of the claim filing requirement, which are to provide the public entity with sufficient information to enable it to adequately investigate and settle claims, and to enable the entity to account for potential liabilities and to avoid similar liabilities in the future. The court concluded that "even a 'futile' claim would provide a public entity with notice of a potential claim enabling adequate investigation and fiscal planning."
Baxter v. State Teachers' Retirement Sys., 18 Cal. App. 5th 340 (2017)
In 1999, the Salinas Unified School District and the teachers' union entered into a collective...
