Moinuddin v. State of Cal., Dept. of Transportation CA2/5
B297674
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- Sheik Moinuddin, a long‑time Caltrans engineer, was promoted to Principal Transportation Engineer, placed on a one‑year probation, received critical performance reviews, and was later demoted back to Senior Transportation Engineer by Caltrans.
- Moinuddin appealed the demotion to the State Personnel Board (the Board) on disciplinary‑procedure grounds but deliberately did not assert discrimination or retaliation before the Board; the Board sustained the demotion. His subsequent writ petition challenging the Board was denied on appeal after the FEHA trial.
- While administrative proceedings were pending, Moinuddin filed a FEHA suit alleging national‑origin discrimination, retaliation (including removal of an employee from his supervision and denial of later promotions), and failure to prevent discrimination/retaliation; he sought damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.
- A jury found Caltrans discriminated and retaliated (mixed‑motive), but also found Caltrans would have taken the same actions because of Moinuddin’s poor job performance, so the jury awarded no damages. The trial court nonetheless entered declaratory relief, several injunctions (including requiring a retaliation‑specific EEO policy, training, and posting), and awarded attorney fees.
- On appeal, the court held preclusion/exhaustion did not bar the FEHA trial because the Board’s decision was not final when the trial occurred and, independently, the promotion denials supported the FEHA verdict; it affirmed most rulings but struck the unpleaded declaratory relief and an overbroad injunction ordering Caltrans generally to “obey FEHA,” and remanded for reconsideration of fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue preclusion / judicial exhaustion | Board decision not final / plaintiff reserved discrimination claims; FEHA claims may proceed | Board findings should preclude relitigation of demotion issues; trial should have been stayed | No preclusion: Board decision was not final at trial; independent promotion claims also sustain judgment |
| Declaratory relief | Requested post‑verdict; court may grant relief for FEHA violations | Declaratory relief was not pleaded in the complaint and thus improper | Declaratory judgment stricken because plaintiff did not plead a cause of action seeking declaratory relief |
| Injunctive relief scope | Asked for injunctions including reinstatement, policy changes, training, posting | Injunctions were overbroad, punitive, interfere with statute, and in some respects merely order Caltrans to "obey the law" | Upheld injunctions requiring a retaliation‑specific policy, training, and posting in District 7; struck the broad injunction ordering Caltrans to comply generally with FEHA as an impermissible "obey the law" order |
| Sufficiency of evidence re: legitimate reasons (no damages) | Insufficient evidence that non‑discriminatory reasons motivated removal of duties or denial of later promotions | Substantial evidence showed legitimate, non‑discriminatory reasons (supervisory friction, applicant experience and ranking) | Substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that legitimate reasons partly motivated actions; denial of damages stands |
| Attorney fees | Fees and multiplier requested; reductions unjustified | Trial court reasonably reduced lodestar and denied multiplier | Fee award remanded for recalculation in light of modifications to equitable relief |
Key Cases Cited
- DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813 (describes elements of issue preclusion)
- Lucido v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.3d 335 (explains the ‘identical issue’ requirement for preclusion)
- Vandenberg v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.4th 815 (policy rationales for giving preclusive effect to administrative findings)
- Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal.4th 61 (judicial exhaustion as a corollary of preclusion doctrine)
- Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 50 Cal.4th 860 (administrative decisions can have preclusive effect when final)
- Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203 (mixed‑motive framework and employer’s avoidable‑consequences defense to damages)
- Davis v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 245 Cal.App.4th 1302 (party cannot obtain declaratory relief not pleaded)
- Cook v. Craig, 55 Cal.App.3d 773 (injunctions that merely order a public agency to "obey the law" are impermissibly broad)