Karin White v. City of Pasadena
671 F.3d 918
9th Cir.2012Background
- White, a Pasadena Police Department officer diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, was terminated in 2004 for alleged drug-dealer association and lying about the relationship, based on wiretap-recorded conversations.
- White challenged the 2004 termination through a grievance under the MOU; an arbiter found wiretap violations and that the disciplinary action was barred by a one-year statute of limitations, leading to reinstatement in 2005.
- White I, a state-court FEHA action, alleged discrimination and harassment based on perceived disability and privacy violations; a jury verdict found no discrimination or harassment but awarded damages for invasion of privacy, with appellate rulings upholding most aspects of the judgment.
- In 2007, while White I was on appeal, White was shot in the home; City terminated her in August 2007 for allegedly making false statements about the shooting; White II pursued administrative review under the MOU with an arbiter and City Manager.
- The arbiter found no proven retaliation and that White’s suicide theory was unsupported; the City Manager upheld termination as justifiable and timely; mandamus review upheld the decision in the state courts.
- White III, filed in 2008, alleged continuing FEHA discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and § 1983 claims based on the second termination; the City removed the action to federal court, and the district court stayed it pending state outcomes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does White I preclude FEHA discrimination/harassment claims in White III? | White argues White I does not bar new FEHA claims in White III. | City contends White I's adverse FEHA findings bar relitigation under Lucido. | Yes; White I precludes FEHA discrimination/harassment issues in White III. |
| Does White II preclude retaliation and just-cause issues in White III? | White argues White II did not resolve all issues and should not preclude later claims. | City argues White II had issue/claim preclusion effect, binding White III on retaliation and just-cause questions. | Yes; White II precludes retaliation and lack of just-cause defenses in White III. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 795 P.2d 1223 (Cal. 1990) (six-factor test for issue preclusion under California law)
- Slater v. Blackwood, 543 P.2d 593 (Cal. 1975) (definition of 'same cause of action' under claim preclusion)
- Runyon v. Bd. of Trs., 229 P.3d 985 (Cal. 2010) (administrative proceedings may have judicial character for preclusion)
- Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe County, 69 F.3d 321 (9th Cir. 1995) (administrative findings reviewed by state courts can have res judicata effect)
- Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1984) (full faith and credit requires applying state preclusion rules to federal actions)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1981) (§ 1983 does not override state preclusion rules)
- Imen v. Glassford, 247 Cal. Rptr. 514 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (judicial-character test for administrative proceedings)
- United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1966) (federal preclusion law and full faith and credit framework)