418 P.3d 1020
Ariz. Ct. App.2018Background
- Alicia Peterson, a Surprise Police Department detective and Marine Corps reservist, alleged persistent sexual harassment during a sergeant promotion process and resigned effective Sept. 1, 2010, claiming constructive discharge.
- Peterson sued the City of Surprise alleging constructive discharge in violation of law (sex and military-service discrimination) and breach of an implied contract; the court dismissed the contract claim and a jury awarded $375,000 on the wrongful-termination/retaliation theory.
- The City appealed, arguing Peterson failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA) for her sex-discrimination claim and thus could not proceed under the Employment Protection Act (EPA) by recasting the claim as retaliation.
- Peterson asserted her EPA retaliation claim under A.R.S. § 23-1501(A)(3)(c)(ii) — that she reported statutory violations (sex discrimination) and was constructively discharged in retaliation for reporting them.
- The trial evidence showed substantial harassment based on sex, but Peterson did not timely file an ACRA charge; she also failed to show a cognizable claim under the cited military-protection statutes.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment for Peterson on wrongful termination/retaliation but affirmed the denial of the City’s attorney-fee request under A.R.S. § 12-341.01(A).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Peterson could pursue an EPA retaliation claim for reporting sex discrimination without exhausting ACRA administrative remedies | Peterson argued exhaustion is required only for "firsthand" ACRA claims, not for EPA retaliation claims under § 23-1501(A)(3)(c)(ii) | City argued Peterson failed to timely file an ACRA charge, so her sex-discrimination claim (and any EPA claim premised on reporting that discrimination) is barred | Held: Peterson’s failure to exhaust ACRA remedies bars her EPA retaliation claim when both claims rest on the same underlying statutory violation; judgment reversed |
| Whether Peterson stated an EPA claim based on reporting violations of military-protection statutes (A.R.S. §§ 26-167, -168) | Peterson contended coworkers’ conduct violated statutes protecting reservists and the City’s failure to act was retaliatory | City argued § 26-167 applies to National Guard (not reservists), § 26-168 protects seniority/precedence (not harassment), and Peterson presented no evidence of such violations or of reporting them | Held: Peterson failed to show a violation or reporting of these military statutes; no EPA retaliation claim on that basis |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying the City attorney fees under § 12-341.01(A) for the dismissed contract claim | Peterson argued her contract claim was incidental and action sounded in tort/statute; she was the successful party at trial | City argued it prevailed on the contract claim and sought fees for prevailing party in a contract action | Held: Denial of fees affirmed; court reasonably concluded the contract claim was incidental to the statutory/tort claims and decision was within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Fairbanks v. Rice, 20 P.3d 1097 (Alaska 2000) (constructive discharge is not an independent cause of action; it satisfies the discharge element of a wrongful-discharge claim)
- Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 876 P.2d 1022 (Cal. 1994) (after proving constructive discharge, plaintiff must prove an underlying tort or contract breach for damages)
- Balmer v. Hawkeye Steel, 604 N.W.2d 639 (Iowa 2000) (constructive discharge actionable only when an express discharge would be actionable)
- Bodett v. CoxCom, Inc., 366 F.3d 736 (9th Cir. 2004) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies under state anti-discrimination law can waive related EPA retaliation claims)
- Onelas v. SCOA Indus., Inc., 120 Ariz. 547 (App. 1978) (failure to timely file an administrative charge under state civil-rights statute bars subsequent suit)
- Taylor v. Graham County Chamber of Commerce, 201 Ariz. 184 (App. 2001) (EPA does not provide a back-door tort claim to circumvent remedies provided by a statute)