Briley v. City of West Covina
B295666
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- Jason Briley, a deputy fire marshal for West Covina, reported alleged safety violations and later alleged retaliation by his supervisor, Fire Chief Larry Whithorn, and others.
- The City investigated Briley’s complaints and found them mostly unfounded; while that probe was pending, a separate investigation (Larson) into complaints about Briley concluded he engaged in unprofessional conduct and was untruthful.
- Whithorn issued a notice of intent to terminate based on the Larson report; the termination was upheld after a pretermination hearing.
- Briley filed an administrative appeal to the City’s HR Commission but withdrew, asserting the commission lacked jurisdiction and that proceeding would be futile and violate due process because Whithorn and City Manager Freeland would be the ultimate decisionmakers.
- Briley sued under Labor Code § 1102.5; the trial court held exhaustion was excused, a jury returned verdict for Briley with ~$4 million in damages, and the trial court denied a new trial.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed liability rulings and evidentiary rulings, concluded due process excused exhaustion because Whithorn was personally embroiled and biased, but vacated and remanded the $3.5 million noneconomic damages awards as grossly excessive unless reduced to $1,000,000 (past) and $100,000 (future).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Briley had to exhaust administrative remedies before suing | Briley argued exhaustion was excused because HR process lacked jurisdiction, was futile, and violated due process because Whithorn and Freeland were biased | City argued Briley failed to pursue his available administrative remedy and no exception to exhaustion applied | Court held due process exception applied: Whithorn was personally embroiled and his role as a decisive reviewer created unacceptable risk of bias, excusing exhaustion |
| Admissibility of Larson’s investigative report and her testimony about other witnesses’ statements | Briley: objected as hearsay and prejudicial; argued jury would be misled by report | City: argued evidence admissible to show employer’s state of mind and good-faith reasons for termination | Court upheld exclusion: trial court reasonably found risk jurors would treat the hearsay as true and be unable to confine it to non-hearsay purpose; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
| Admission of testimony about Chung’s statements to McKay after both left City | Briley: used testimony to impeach Chung and show bias against Briley | City: argued statements irrelevant and unduly prejudicial because speakers were former employees | Court allowed McKay’s testimony as probative of Chung’s bias and not unduly prejudicial |
| Excessiveness of noneconomic damages award | Briley: sought large awards for emotional distress and loss of career satisfaction | City: argued award was grossly excessive and the product of passion, prejudice, or improper argument | Court found $3.5M noneconomic award shocking and excessive given limited evidence of severe, lasting harm; vacated past and future noneconomic awards and remanded unless plaintiff accepts reduction to $1,000,000 and $100,000 respectively |
Key Cases Cited
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (Cal. 2005) (general rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies)
- Burrell v. City of Los Angeles, 209 Cal.App.3d 568 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (due-process requirement for a reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer)
- Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 49 Cal.3d 826 (Cal. 1989) (circumstances where probability of actual bias is constitutionally intolerable)
- Mennig v. City Council, 86 Cal.App.3d 341 (Cal. Ct. App. 1978) (decisionmakers too personally embroiled to overturn administrative recommendation)
- Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1975) (typical administrative roles do not automatically violate impartiality, but limits exist)
- Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach, 233 Cal.App.4th 1012 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (participation by a biased decisionmaker can invalidate a decision)
- Buell-Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., 141 Cal.App.4th 525 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (appellate standards and remedies for excessive noneconomic damages)
- Bigler-Engler v. Breg, Inc., 7 Cal.App.5th 276 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (factors for assessing whether a noneconomic award is the product of passion or prejudice)