Butts v. Board of Trustees
170 Cal. Rptr. 3d 604
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Sheila Butts worked for CSU Dominguez Hills from 1979; she gained permanent status in nonmanagerial SSP roles by 1981 and was promoted to an MPP (management) position in 2003.
- MPP managers serve at-will and generally do not receive permanent status; Butts understood this but believed she could "retreat" to her prior permanent bargaining-unit job if management didn’t work out.
- After filing an EEOC complaint alleging discrimination, Butts received a marginal evaluation and was terminated from her MPP role in June 2008; CSU refused her request to retreat to her prior permanent position.
- Butts sued for discrimination, retaliation, and related claims; discrimination claims were dropped and the case proceeded to trial on retaliation only; the jury found no retaliation and judgment was entered for CSU.
- Prior to trial CSU obtained summary adjudication that section 42723 did not give Butts retreat rights (court interpreted §42723 to apply only to managers who were MPP employees as of 1/1/84); trial court excluded retreat-evidence at trial. On appeal the Court of Appeal reviewed §42723 de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 42723(c)–(d) grants retreat rights to an employee who had permanent status before 1/1/84 but became an MPP after 1/1/84 | §42723’s plain text applies to any MPP employee who "had permanent status in a class prior to 1/1/84," so Butts retained permanent status in prior class and retreat rights after promotion in 2003 | §42723 only protects managers who were MPP employees (i.e., involuntarily included) on 1/1/84; later-promoted managers like Butts get no retreat rights | Court rejects CSU’s narrow reading; holds §42723(c)–(d) applies to employees who had permanent status prior to 1/1/84 even if promoted to MPP later, so Butts was entitled to retreat rights |
| Whether the trial court’s grant of summary adjudication on retreat rights and exclusion of retreat evidence prejudiced the jury verdict on retaliation | Butts did not challenge the retaliation verdict on appeal and concedes the error did not affect the retaliation finding | CSU contends any errors were harmless as to the jury verdict | Court affirms the judgment as to the retaliation claim because Butts does not challenge the jury’s factual finding |
| Whether the erroneous summary adjudication deprived Butts of a meritorious claim for retreat rights requiring reversal in part | Butts argues the motion ‘‘completely disposed’’ of her retreat-rights claim and thereby prejudiced her ability to litigate that claim on the merits | CSU maintains either §42723 did not apply or any error was harmless | Court holds the summary adjudication was erroneous and prejudicial as to the retreat-rights claim; reverses judgment insofar as it disposes of that claim and remands for proceedings on retreat rights |
| Whether Butts failed to exhaust administrative remedies (Ed. Code § 89539) before suing | Butts invoked the MPP’s exclusive administrative mechanism (§ 42728) and received a right-to-sue EEOC letter; § 42728 governs MPP employees’ remedies and she sought reconsideration under it | CSU asserts Ed. Code § 89539 exhaustion is required for dismissal claims | Court holds § 89539 does not apply because Butts was an at-will MPP employee (not dismissed for cause) and § 42728 provides the exclusive MPP administrative remedy; exhaustion defense fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoitt v. Department of Rehabilitation, 207 Cal.App.4th 513 (2012) (de novo review of statutory/regulatory interpretation)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, 19 Cal.4th 1 (1998) (agency interpretations entitled to situational deference)
- Murphy v. Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc., 40 Cal.4th 1094 (2007) (reduction of deference when agency departs from prior interpretation)
- Price v. Starbucks Corp., 192 Cal.App.4th 1136 (2011) (rules of statutory/regulatory construction—give plain meaning and harmonize provisions)
- Generale Bank Nederland v. Eyes of the Beholder Ltd., 61 Cal.App.4th 1384 (1998) (appellate prejudice standard)
- Motion Picture Studio Teachers & Welfare Workers v. Millan, 51 Cal.App.4th 1190 (1996) (agency cannot amend a regulation’s effect by inconsistent interpretation)