87 Cal.App.5th 1048
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- Plaintiffs Jennifer Bitner and Evelina Herrera were licensed vocational nurses employed by CDCR assigned to one-on-one suicide watch of inmates.
- They alleged male inmates subjected them to repeated sexual harassment while on duty and that CDCR failed to prevent or correct the harassment, bringing FEHA claims for hostile work environment (§12940(j)) and failure to prevent harassment (§12940(k)).
- CDCR asserted statutory immunity under Gov. Code §844.6 (public-entity immunity for injuries proximately caused by a prisoner) and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for CDCR on the basis of §844.6 immunity.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing (1) §844.6 should not bar FEHA claims and (2) the undisputed facts did not show plaintiffs’ injuries were proximately caused by prisoners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §844.6 immunity excludes FEHA claims | FEHA creates direct statutory liability and should be read as an exception to §844.6 | §844.6’s plain text gives broad immunity for injuries proximately caused by prisoners and lists specific exceptions that do not include FEHA; immunity controls absent clear legislative intent otherwise | Court held §844.6 applies to bar FEHA claims against a public entity; no FEHA exception was read into §844.6 |
| Whether summary judgment was improper because plaintiffs’ injuries were not proximately caused by prisoners | Plaintiffs contend injuries can be attributed to CDCR’s alleged FEHA violations (concurrent cause) and thus §844.6 does not apply | CDCR showed undisputed evidence the harassment was perpetrated by inmates; §844.6 bars liability when a prisoner’s acts are a proximate cause even if there are concurrent causes | Court found plaintiffs forfeited the argument and, on the merits, held §844.6 applies because a prisoner’s proximate causation suffices to trigger immunity; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether §815.6 (mandatory statutory duties) overrides §844.6 immunity | Plaintiffs argued §815.6 imposes liability for breach of mandatory statutory duties (including FEHA duties) and thus should defeat §844.6 | §815.6 is subject to the immunity scheme in the same part of the Government Code; §815(b) makes such liability subject to any statutory immunity | Court held §815.6 does not override §844.6; immunity remains controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. Montoya, 10 Cal.4th 972 (Cal. 1995) (FEHA does not abrogate statutory immunity for public employees absent clear legislative intent)
- Towery v. State of California, 14 Cal.App.5th 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (construing §844.6 and confirming its stronger, specific immunity language)
- Savitt v. Jordan, 142 Cal.App.3d 820 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983) (interpreting §844.6 as granting immunity where injury is proximately caused by a prisoner)
- County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 181 Cal.App.4th 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory governmental immunity overrides statutes imposing liability absent clear legislative intent)
- People v. Scott, 58 Cal.4th 1415 (Cal. 2014) (statutory interpretation principles: plain meaning controls)
- Esparza v. County of Los Angeles, 224 Cal.App.4th 452 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (governmental immunity generally precludes imposing FEHA-based liability on public entities)