Ly v. County of Fresno
F072351
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 12, 2017Background
- Three Laotian (Hmong) Fresno County correctional officers (Va Ly, Travis Herr, Pao Yang) sued the County under FEHA for race/national-origin discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, claiming resulting psychiatric injury.
- Each had separately pursued workers’ compensation claims for psychiatric injury based on the same workplace incidents; each WCJ (and WCAB where applicable) ruled against the employee, finding the County’s actions lawful, nondiscriminatory, or good-faith personnel decisions.
- After the WCAB/WCJ decisions became final, the County moved for summary judgment in the superior court, asserting res judicata and collateral estoppel barred the FEHA action.
- The trial court granted summary judgment on collateral estoppel grounds. The Court of Appeal affirmed, but on the alternative ground of res judicata (claim preclusion).
- The appellate court held the workers’ compensation judgments were final, involved the same parties and the same primary right (the right to be free from workplace discrimination causing psychiatric injury), and thus precluded relitigation in FEHA court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) bars the FEHA claims | WC proceedings didn’t necessarily decide nondiscrimination; FEHA raises different legal issues | WC proceedings actually adjudicated the facts and found employer actions lawful and nondiscriminatory | Court did not base decision on collateral estoppel but trial court had relied on it; appellate decision affirmed on res judicata instead |
| Whether res judicata (claim preclusion) bars the FEHA claims | Different primary rights and remedies (WC vs FEHA); plaintiffs could pursue FEHA despite WC outcome | Plaintiffs elected WC forum and final adverse WC judgments bar subsequent suit on same injury | Held: res judicata applies — same primary right (injury from discriminatory/harassing employment acts); WC final judgments preclude FEHA claims |
| Whether pursuing WC first waives FEHA remedy because WC exclusivity applies | WC is not exclusive for discrimination claims; FEHA remains available and plaintiffs reasonably pursued both | Election of remedies doctrine: choosing WC and obtaining final judgment precludes later FEHA suit for the same injury | Held: though FEHA was available, plaintiffs’ election to litigate (and lose) in WC forum bars relitigation under res judicata |
| Whether error (if any) in WC findings affects preclusive effect | Erroneous WC rulings shouldn’t preclude meritorious FEHA claims | Even erroneous final judgments are conclusive for res judicata purposes | Held: an erroneous WC judgment remains preclusive; plaintiffs are barred despite any asserted error |
Key Cases Cited
- Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888 (California 2002) (explains claim-preclusion/primary-right theory)
- Busick v. Workmen’s Comp. Appeals Bd., 7 Cal.3d 967 (California 1972) (holding a final judgment in one forum can preclude another remedy for the same primary right)
- Hampton v. County of San Diego, 62 Cal.4th 340 (California 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Accardi v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.App.4th 341 (California 1993) (workers’ compensation does not automatically bar FEHA claims for discrimination)
- Flait v. North American Watch Corp., 3 Cal.App.4th 467 (California 1992) (legislative intent that workers’ compensation should not defeat civil rights remedies)
- Lake v. Lakewood Chiropractic Center, 20 Cal.App.4th 47 (California 1993) (pursuit of WC remedy to final judgment can bar later tort claims)