224 Cal. App. 4th 452
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs were peace officers in the Los Angeles County Office of Public Safety (OPS); the Board of Supervisors voted to dissolve OPS and fold its duties into the Sheriff’s Department.
- OPS officers could apply for deputy sheriff posts but had to meet Sheriff’s Department qualifications; several plaintiffs failed application requirements (psychological, color‑vision, background checks) and were offered lower‑paying custody assistant positions.
- Plaintiffs sued the County, the Sheriff’s Department, the Board, and the Civil Service Commission asserting FEHA claims (retaliation, age and disability discrimination, failure to prevent/discriminate), POBRA violations, and a writ of mandate to compel administrative hearings.
- Defendants demurred, arguing the County’s legislative act was immunized under Gov. Code § 818.2 and that POBRA did not entitle plaintiffs to the requested process; the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend; plaintiffs did not amend and appealed.
- The federal courts previously dismissed related federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims; the Ninth Circuit affirmed that POBRA did not give plaintiffs a right to continued OPS employment or administrative hearings after departmental elimination.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed: County’s legislative act is absolutely immune under § 818.2 as an "enactment" and collateral estoppel bars relitigation of POBRA and writ claims decided in the federal action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County’s dissolution of OPS and related employment outcomes are actionable under FEHA or barred by legislative immunity (§ 818.2) | The Board’s action violated FEHA (discrimination/retaliation); injunction and other non‑monetary relief available | The Board’s vote was a legislative enactment; § 818.2 grants absolute immunity from tort liability for enactments and their implementation | Held: § 818.2 bars FEHA claims against the County; the ordinance is an "enactment" and legislative immunity applies to implementation as well |
| Whether seeking injunctive or non‑monetary relief avoids § 818.2 immunity | Plaintiffs contend injunctive relief is permitted and immunity shouldn’t bar non‑monetary claims | Defendants argue plaintiffs primarily seek damages and that injunctions cannot be used to evade § 818.2; County and Sheriff are separate entities | Held: Injunctive relief does not circumvent § 818.2; plaintiffs failed to plead a viable injunctive remedy that avoids immunity |
| Whether POBRA entitles plaintiffs to administrative hearings or continued employment after a departmental elimination | Plaintiffs claim POBRA protections were violated by interrogation, demotion, adverse file entries, polygraph, financial inquiries, and loss of positions | Defendants argue POBRA protects against discipline for cause, not loss of positions from departmental elimination or hiring decisions by a separate agency | Held: POBRA does not guarantee continued employment or pre‑elimination hearings; it governs discipline for cause, not departmental eliminations or hiring decisions |
| Whether federal court rulings preclude relitigation of POBRA/Civil Service/mandamus claims (collateral estoppel) | Plaintiffs contend the federal court’s § 1983 ruling did not necessarily decide state POBRA/Civil Service issues | Defendants assert the federal district court and Ninth Circuit already decided POBRA/appeal‑rights issues and those rulings are final as to identical issues/parties | Held: Collateral estoppel applies; prior federal rulings that POBRA and Civil Service Rules did not create the claimed property or hearing rights preclude relitigation in state court |
Key Cases Cited
- HFH, Ltd. v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 508 (Cal. 1975) (legislative acts immune from tort damages even if improper)
- Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15 (U.S. 1953) ("it is not a tort for government to govern")
- Frank v. County of Los Angeles, 149 Cal.App.4th 805 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (OPS and Sheriff’s Department are distinct entities with separate hiring rules)
- Caldwell v. Montoya, 10 Cal.4th 972 (Cal. 1995) (statutory immunities under Tort Claims Act prevail over general statutory duties absent clear abrogation)
- Nunn v. State of California, 35 Cal.3d 616 (Cal. 1984) (legislative immunity extends to implementation)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (Cal. 1990) (elements and purpose of collateral estoppel)
- Lumpkin v. Jordan, 49 Cal.App.4th 1223 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (collateral estoppel applies where prior federal ruling decided pivotal factual issue)
- Los Angeles Police Protective League v. City of Los Angeles, 35 Cal.App.4th 1535 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (POBRA does not interfere with hiring decisions)
- White Motor Corp. v. Teresinski, 214 Cal.App.3d 754 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (erroneous judgments are nonetheless conclusive for collateral estoppel)