Brown v. County of Los Angeles
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 380
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Brown, a County DMH Clinical Psychologist II, faced a notice of discharge for license noncompliance after her five-year waiver expired.
- The County obtained a five-year waiver from the State DMH; Brown signed waivers acknowledging licensure requirements and expiry consequences.
- Brown twice attempted to pass the licensure exam; her waiver expired October 22, 2006, and extension requests were denied.
- Brown argued she fell within the statutory exemption for government employees under Business and Professions Code § 2910 (Exempt Setting).
- The trial court granted Brown’s in limine motion excluding license evidence, ruling Brown was legally licensed under the Exempt Setting, and instructed the jury accordingly.
- A jury found retaliation against Brown for safety complaints; the trial court later limited evidence about Brown’s licensing status.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Brown licensed under state law at discharge? | Brown argues § 2910 exempted her from licensure. | County contends Brown did not meet plain § 2910 terms and lacked a license. | No; Brown was not licensed under state law. |
| Does § 2910 exempt government employees providing psychological services within the agency’s setting? | Brown contends exemption applies during employment only within Exempt Setting. | County argues exemption applies, precluding license requirement. | No; plain § 2910 language excludes direct health/mental health providers, Brown did provide such services. |
| Was the exclusion of licensing evidence prejudicial to the County? | Exclusion did not prejudice Brown since she was licensed. | Exclusion prevented the County from proving a legitimate nonretaliatory discharge reason. | Yes; exclusion was prejudicial, requiring reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. Shamrock Foods Co., 24 Cal.4th 415 (Cal. 2000) (de novo review of licensing-status question)
- Osborn v. Irwin Memorial Blood Bank, 5 Cal.App.4th 234 (Cal. App. 1992) (reversal standard for evidentiary error substantial prejudice)
- Wilson v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 52 Cal.App.4th 267 (Cal. App. 1997) (statutory interpretation: avoid inserting omitted language)
- County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML, 165 Cal.App.4th 798 (Cal. App. 2008) (legislative intent and omission significance in statutory construction)
- People v. King, 38 Cal.4th 617 (Cal. 2006) (statutory interpretation: plain language controls absent ambiguity)