By Kerianne Steele and Alejandro Delgado
Kerianne Steele is a shareholder at Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld in Alameda. She provides general representation to labor unions, primarily in the public sector. Alejandro Delgado is an Associate in the Los Angeles office of Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld. He represents and advises public sector unions in all aspects of labor and employment law.
Terris v. County of Santa Barbara, 20 Cal. App. 5th 551 (2018)
The Court of Appeal for the Second District held that the enactment of Labor Code § 244 did not disturb the California Supreme Court's holding in Campbell v. Regents of Univ.of Cal.,1 that public employees must pursue appropriate internal administrative remedies before filing a civil action against their employer.
The case arose when the County laid off Shawn Terris, a civil service employee, and 34 other employees in 2009 in response to a projected budget shortfall of nearly $11 million. Terris filed a complaint with the County's civil service commission (commission), alleging discrimination and that the termination procedure violated her seniority rights. The commission ruled that it could decide whether the County followed the proper procedures for terminating Terris's employment, but it could not decide Terris's discrimination claims, because she had not exhausted her administrative remedy of filing a discrimination complaint with the County's equal employment opportunity office (EEO). Terris did not file an EEO complaint and urged the commission to decide whether the County followed the proper procedures in terminating her employment. The commission ruled that the County complied with all the required procedures. Terris then filed a wrongful termination and employment discrimination action alleging, in part, that the County terminated her employment to prevent her from holding an elected office as a retirement board trustee, in violation of Labor Code § 1101, interfered with her political activity as a retirement board trustee, in violation of Labor Code § 1102, and retaliated against her for lawful complaints she made under Labor Code § 1102.5. The trial court granted the County's motion for summary judgment, finding that Terris did not exhaust her administrative remedies on these causes of action.
On appeal, Terris contended that the trial court erred in ruling that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing her wrongful termination action alleging violations of Labor Code §§ 1101, 1102, and 1102.5. Terris argued that Labor Code § 244(a) provides that employees "are not required to exhaust administrative remedies or procedures in order to bring a civil action under any provision of this code," and relied primarily on a federal court decision, Neushul v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,2 to support her reading of the statute.
The court disagreed. Looking to the legislative history of the statute, the court found that Labor Code § 244(a) was enacted only to protect employees' right to sue without first having to exhaust the Labor Commissioner's administrative procedures and remedies.
According to the court, the Legislature enacted Labor Code § 244(a) to resolve conflicting judicial decisions regarding whether Campbell's exhaustion requirement required plaintiffs to file a claim with the Labor Commissioner before filing an action. The court specifically found that that there is "no basis to conclude that the Legislature enacted [Labor Code § 244(a)] to overturn a California Supreme Court decision—Campbell, or to extinguish decades...
