McAllister v. Los Angeles Unified School District
216 Cal. App. 4th 1198
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- McAllister sued LAUSD and Deasy in a demurrer posture after dismissal of several claims; she attended an Occupy LA rally and made controversial remarks during non-work time.
- LAUSD terminated McAllister as a substitute teacher in October 2011 after she gave an interview at the rally and publicized her comments.
- Deasy, as LAUSD superintendent, was alleged to have made or implemented the decision to terminate and to have acted within LAUSD policy.
- McAllister asserted multiple causes of action including a federal 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim, a California Constitution art I, §2(a) claim, tort claims for wrongful discharge and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and punitive damages.
- The trial court sustained demurrers to all challenged claims, holding certain claims barred by Gov. Code §815 and the private right of action under art. I, §2(a) did not exist; the court also found no viable individual-capacity §1983 claim against Deasy.
- The court treated the §1983 claim as against Deasy only in official capacity and held no amendment could cure the defect; the §2(a) claim and the tort claims were appropriately barred; punitive damages were moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| §1983 against Deasy in personal capacity viable? | McAllister argues Deasy can be sued personally if amended. | Deasy was sued only in official capacity; amendment cannot cure. | No amendment allowed; Deasy sued only in official capacity; no personal-capacity claim allowed. |
| Private right of action under art. I, §2(a) private damages claim recognized? | Katzberg factors support recognizing a constitutional tort action. | Degrassi rejects private damages; no private right to damages. | No private damages action under art. I, §2(a); Katzberg factors do not support recognition. |
| Tort claims of wrongful discharge and NIED against public entity barred? | Requests damages despite government immunity. | Gov. Code §815 bars common-law liability; Miklosy bars Tameny-type claims against public entities. | Barred against public entity; demurrers upheld. |
| Injunctive relief under art. I, §2(a) for reemployment available? | Injunctive relief could be available despite damages not allowed. | Constitution does not authorize employment-related injunctions. | Injunctive relief not recognized under art. I, §2(a) for employment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (official-capacity suits treated as suits against the state; personal-capacity suits allowed for individual liability)
- Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) (state officials sued in official capacity barred; personal capacity needed for §1983 claims)
- Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore Unified School Dist., 83 Cal.App.4th 1098 (2000) (California school districts as arms of the state; not liable under §1983)
- Degrassi v. Cook, 29 Cal.4th 333 (2002) (no private damages action under California Constitution art I, §2(a) after Katzberg analysis)
- Katzberg v. Regents of University of California, 29 Cal.4th 324 (2002) (Katzberg factors for recognizing constitutional tort actions)
- Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, 44 Cal.4th 876 (2008) (Tameny actions against public entities barred; public entity immunity upheld)
- Motevalli v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist., 122 Cal.App.4th 97 (2004) (district-funded consequences and public policy concerns in recognizing constitutional torts)