Le Mere v. L. A. Unified Sch. Dist.
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 76
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Aurora Le Mere, a teacher with LAUSD since 2002, sued LAUSD and six individuals in 2015 alleging long‑running harassment, discrimination and retaliation tied to prior protected activities (worker's comp claims, Education Code complaints, and a 2007 civil suit).
- She filed an initial complaint, a First Amended Complaint (FAC), then a Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The SAC added a new Education Code harassment cause of action and repleaded Labor Code claims; it did not replead one FAC cause she had leave to amend.
- LAUSD demurred to the FAC; the trial court sustained parts with leave to amend and sustained others without leave. The SAC was later demurred to and the trial court sustained the demurrer to all three SAC causes of action without leave to amend. Judgment of dismissal followed.
- Key factual timing: alleged retaliation tied to a 2007 lawsuit, but most alleged retaliatory acts occurred starting in 2009 and continued through 2014; a notice of intent to suspend occurred in 2015. A government claim was filed February 16, 2016 (after suit began).
- Appellant argued the trial court erred in (1) dismissing a newly added cause of action in the SAC without leave to amend; (2) finding insufficient allegations of retaliatory animus/causation; and (3) concluding she failed to comply with the Government Claims Act. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FAC pleaded retaliation under Gov. Code §12940(h) based on 2007 suit | Le Mere: allegations show pattern of retaliation following 2007 suit | LAUSD: no facts showing retaliatory animus, no actors knew of 2007 suit, and long temporal gap defeats causation | Affirmed dismissal: pleading failed to allege animus or causal link; two‑year gap insufficient for inference of causation |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to add new Education Code harassment claim in SAC | Le Mere: she had requested leave earlier and delay was harmless; should be allowed to add the claim | LAUSD: new claim was untimely, not previously sought, and was defectively pleaded (no allegation of local law enforcement complaint) | Affirmed denial of leave: 14‑month unexplained delay and deficient pleading justified denial |
| Whether Labor Code §1102.5 cause in SAC survives despite late government claim | Le Mere: filing claim post‑complaint should be acceptable where harassment continues or is post‑complaint | LAUSD: plaintiff failed to file a timely pre‑litigation claim as required by the Government Claims Act, so suit barred | Affirmed dismissal: failure to present timely claim barred tort suit; post‑filing claim did not cure the prerequisite |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend due to plaintiff's PTSD | Le Mere: PTSD impaired her ability to prosecute and amend | LAUSD: plaintiff was represented by counsel and gave no record proof of inability to proceed | Affirmed: argument forfeited for lack of record citations and counsel represented plaintiff throughout |
Key Cases Cited
- Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc., 89 Cal.App.4th 603 (review of demurrer after opportunity to amend)
- Drum v. San Fernando Valley Bar Assn., 182 Cal.App.4th 247 (construction of complaint after elected not to amend)
- Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 686 (elements of retaliation claim under Gov. Code §12940(h))
- Flait v. North American Watch Corp., 3 Cal.App.4th 467 (temporal proximity as evidence of causation)
- Cornwell v. Electra Cent. Credit Union, 439 F.3d 1018 ( Ninth Circuit: long temporal gaps weaken causation inference)
- J.J. v. County of San Diego, 223 Cal.App.4th 1214 (Government Claims Act: timely claim is condition precedent; actual knowledge alone does not excuse compliance)
- Murray v. Oceanside Unified School Dist., 79 Cal.App.4th 1338 (distinguished: timely pre‑litigation claim existed and was rejected by entity)
- McCoy v. Gustafson, 180 Cal.App.4th 56 (delay and lack of diligence justify denial of leave to amend)
- Munoz v. State of California, 33 Cal.App.4th 1767 (procedure for relief when claim not timely presented)