220 Cal. App. 4th 932
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cornejo filed a 2010 WPA damages action alleging retaliation for reporting improper governmental activity by the Department of Social Services beginning in 2002.
- The Department demurred, arguing the WPA claim must comply with the Government Claims Act presentation requirements and that Cornejo failed to file a pre-suit claim.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer on the Claims Act grounds and dismissed, but did not reach other grounds.
- Administrative proceedings under the WPA occurred from 2004–2009 before the State Board, with initial findings issued in 2004 and a 2008 hearing officer decision; Cornejo participated in some proceedings.
- Chiropractic Examiners held that a WPA plaintiff may pursue an independent judicial action after initial Board findings without need to exhaust through writ review, and the WPA’s Board procedures can be exhausted before suit.
- The court reversed, ruling the WPA is exempt from the Claims Act presentation requirement and remanded for overruling the demurrer; other demurrer grounds were rejected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WPA is exempt from Claims Act presentation | Cornejo argues WPA has its own comprehensive procedure equivalent to Claims Act | Department contends WPA lacks such exemption and requires Claims Act compliance | Yes; WPA is exempt; Board procedures fulfill presentation requirements |
| Effect of settlement agreements on WPA claims | Settlement language does not bar current WPA claims | Settlement provisions preclude certain prior claims | Settlement language not dispositive; demurrer rejected on other grounds |
| Limitations period applicability | WPA not subject to Claims Act limitations; different period governs | Claims Act limitations may apply if considered otherwise | Claims Act limits do not apply to WPA; 945.8 applies; not barred |
| Exhaustion and issue preclusion | Independent judicial action not barred by Board findings; no preclusion | Board findings may have preclusive effect | Chiropractic Examiners framework applies; no preclusion; independent action permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Gatto v. County of Sonoma, 98 Cal.App.4th 744 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2002) (statutory-equivalent claims process inspection)
- Snipes v. City of Bakersfield, 145 Cal.App.3d 861 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 1983) (FEHA-like notice and settlement goals; presentation analogies)
- Garcia v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 173 Cal.App.3d 701 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1985) (FEHA-like provision for administrative process; early investigation)
- Braun v. Bureau of State Audits, 67 Cal.App.4th 1382 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1998) (WPA structure; investigation; no enforcement power by State Auditor)
- Chiropractic Examiners, 45 Cal.4th 963 (Cal. 2009) (initial findings may lead to independent judicial action; no writ review required)