Briley v. City of West Covina
B295666M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2021Background
- Jason Briley, deputy fire marshal for West Covina, reported safety/code violations and later alleged retaliation by his supervisor, Fire Chief Larry Whithorn, and others. Two separate investigations followed: one into Briley’s complaints (finding them largely unfounded) and one into allegations of Briley’s misconduct (Larson’s report concluded misconduct and untruthfulness).
- Whithorn issued a notice of intent to terminate after Larson’s report; the City upheld termination. Briley filed an administrative appeal to the City’s Human Resources (HR) Commission but withdrew, alleging futility and due‑process defects because the ultimate reviewers would be Whithorn and City Manager Chris Freeland.
- Briley sued under Labor Code § 1102.5 for retaliatory termination. The trial court ruled Briley was excused from exhausting the HR appeal (due‑process exception) and the case proceeded to jury trial.
- The jury awarded Briley ~$4 million (≈ $500k economic; $2M past noneconomic; $1.5M future noneconomic). The trial court denied the City’s new‑trial motion. On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed liability rulings, found no reversible evidentiary error on most points, but held the noneconomic awards were excessive.
- The appellate court held Whithorn’s expected role in reviewing the appeal created an unacceptable risk of bias (so exhaustion was excused). It vacated the past and future noneconomic awards and remanded for a new trial on those issues unless Briley accepts remittitur to $1,000,000 (past) and $100,000 (future); otherwise judgment affirmed in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Briley had to exhaust the HR Commission appeal | Briley: exhaustion excused because HR process lacked jurisdiction over retaliation claims, was futile, and violated due process because Whithorn/Freeland were biased | City: Briley had available administrative remedy and had to exhaust it before suing | Court: Due‑process exception applies — Whithorn was too personally embroiled and hostile to be an impartial decisionmaker; exhaustion excused |
| Admissibility of Larson’s 157‑page investigative report & her hearsay testimony | City: report and Larson’s recounting admissible to show City had a legitimate, good‑faith reason to terminate (state of mind) | Briley: report is inadmissible hearsay and risks jury treating it as substantive proof | Court: Exclusion upheld — trial court permissibly found risk high that jury would use the report for truth; City forfeited challenge to alternative grounds; no abuse of discretion |
| Admission of testimony about third‑party statements and disparate treatment (McKay/Chung; Miller nondiscipline) | Briley: testimony relevant to show bias of decisionmakers and pretext by City | City: statements irrelevant or unduly prejudicial; some hearsay | Court: Admission proper — testimony was relevant to show bias and pretext; trial court did not abuse discretion under Evid. Code § 352 |
| Exclusion of evidence re Briley’s Murrieta separation | City: evidence admissible to show propensity/habit (verbal abuse, retaliation) | Briley: exclusion appropriate under Evid. Code § 1101; stipulation sufficed | Court: Exclusion not an abuse — City’s habit theory unsupported and argument forfeited; exclusion proper |
| Excessiveness of noneconomic damages award | Briley: emotional distress and loss vindication justify large award | City: award shocks conscience, likely the product of passion/prejudice (pointing to counsel’s improper attacks during closing) | Court: Awards excessive and unsupported by evidence; vacated and remanded unless remittitur to $1,000,000 (past) and $100,000 (future) accepted |
Key Cases Cited
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (2005) (administrative remedies generally must be exhausted before seeking judicial relief)
- Imagistics Internat., Inc. v. Department of General Services, 150 Cal.App.4th 581 (2007) (exhaustion excused where administrative remedy fails to meet due‑process standards)
- Burrell v. City of Los Angeles, 209 Cal.App.3d 568 (1989) (due‑process requires a reasonably impartial, noninvolved reviewer)
- Kloepfer v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 49 Cal.3d 826 (1989) (probability of actual bias can render decisionmaker disqualified)
- Mennig v. City Council, 86 Cal.App.3d 341 (1978) (officials personally embroiled in controversy cannot be impartial reviewers)
- Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach, 233 Cal.App.4th 1012 (2015) (allowing a biased decisionmaker to participate can invalidate the decision)
- Guz v. Bechtel Nat’l, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (2000) (an employer’s stated legitimate reasons need not be correct to be legally cognizable)
- Bigler‑Engler v. Breg, Inc., 7 Cal.App.5th 276 (2017) (appellate standard for disturbing jury noneconomic damages where award shocks conscience)
- Buell‑Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., 141 Cal.App.4th 525 (2006) (appellate options include remand for retrial on damages or reduction by remittitur)