21 Cal. App. 5th 390
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiff George Corley, a 58-year-old former division chief, sued the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District for age discrimination under FEHA after his February 2012 termination; jury found age was a substantial motivating reason and awarded lost earnings.
- Trial court entered judgment for Corley: $597,629 damages, $853,443 attorney fees, $40,733 costs.
- Corley was reassigned in 2011 to a less familiar region; evidence suggested reassignment and termination were intended to encourage retirement.
- District cited "incompatibility of management style" as the reason for termination; Corley presented evidence this was pretext (no progressive discipline, reasons asserted only after suit, altered promotion qualifications to hire a younger replacement, salary savings).
- District requested a jury instruction modeled on Gov. Code § 3254(c) (Firefighters' Procedural Bill of Rights) concerning removal of a "fire chief;" the trial court refused and removed the instruction.
- Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the § 3254(c)–based instruction inapplicable because the provision applies to a jurisdiction's lead "fire chief," and Corley was a division chief.
Issues
| Issue | Corley (Plaintiff) Argument | District (Defendant) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing the § 3254(c)-based jury instruction | Instruction inapplicable because § 3254(c) pertains to the lead fire chief, not division chiefs | § 3254(c) should apply (or at least its language is relevant) to Corley as a chief and supports District’s lawful-cause theory | Affirmed: § 3254(c) construed to apply to a jurisdiction’s lead fire chief; instruction properly refused |
| Whether § 3254(c) language (indefinite article "a fire chief") implies broader application to all chiefs | § 3254(c)’s text and context indicate it targets the head fire chief; legislative history aligns with POBOR intent | The indefinite article "a" shows a generic application to any person holding a chief title (including division chiefs) | Held for Corley: statutory context and POBOR parallel show the provision targets the singular office of a jurisdiction’s fire chief, not all chiefs |
| Whether refusal to give the instruction was harmless or redundant given other instructions (e.g., business judgment) | Trial court’s business-judgment instruction covered employer decision latitude; § 3254(c) not needed | Instruction was necessary to rebut pretext evidence and show permissive reasons for removal | Court did not need to decide harmlessness because instruction was inapplicable; affirmed |
| (Other claims summarized) Sufficiency of evidence on promotion/damages and attorney-fee multiplier challenges | Corley relied on evidence that he would have been promoted but for discrimination; justification for fee multiplier supported | District argued insufficient evidence and abuse of discretion on fees | Unpublished portions: Court found no reversible error on those claims; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Soule v. Gen. Motors Corp., 8 Cal.4th 548 (trial court must give correct, nonargumentative instructions supported by substantial evidence)
- Norman v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., 107 Cal.App.4th 1233 (trial court need not give instructions that are incorrect, incomplete, or misleading)
- Yohner v. California Dep’t of Justice, 237 Cal.App.4th 1 (rules of statutory interpretation; examine text, context, legislative intent)
- Poole v. Orange County Fire Auth., 61 Cal.4th 1378 (describing scope of Firefighters Procedural Bill of Rights Act)
- Robinson v. City of Chowchilla, 202 Cal.App.4th 368 (legislative history of POBOR shows § 3304(c) intended to protect the apex chief position from political pressure)