Shaw v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 643
Cal.2017Background
- Deborah Shaw sued her former employer (Kindred Hospital and related entities) for retaliatory termination, alleging she reported unsafe patient-care practices and was fired in retaliation.
- She pleaded two causes of action: (1) statutory whistleblower claim under Health & Safety Code §1278.5(g) and (2) common-law wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Tameny). She sought damages and equitable relief under §1278.5(g).
- The trial court held the §1278.5(g) claim was equitable and denied Shaw a jury trial on that claim, while allowing a jury for the Tameny claim; the court invited a writ petition and certified the issue under CCP §166.1.
- Shaw obtained a pretrial writ in the Court of Appeal, which ruled that (a) denial of a jury trial is reviewable by pretrial extraordinary writ, and (b) §1278.5(g) entitles plaintiffs to a jury when seeking damages.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether denial of a jury trial may be reviewed pretrial by extraordinary writ, and (2) whether §1278.5(g) creates a statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial for retaliatory-termination claims.
Issues
| Issue | Shaw's Argument | Kindred's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of pretrial extraordinary writ to review denial of jury trial | Nessbit-era rule obsolete; writ appropriate because appeal inadequate and court exceeded its power | Early decisions bar pretrial writ; appeal after final judgment is adequate | Denial of jury trial is reviewable pretrial by extraordinary writ (Nessbit and similar precedents overruled to extent inconsistent with Abelleira) |
| Statutory right to jury trial under §1278.5(g) | 2007 amendment expanded remedies to include legal remedies and "any remedy deemed warranted," so jury trial contemplated when damages sought | Statute vests remedy selection to the court ("deemed warranted by the court"); historical remedies in §1278.5 were equitable, so statute provides court (not jury) determination | No statutory right to jury trial under §1278.5(g); the 2007 amendment delegates remedy‑fashioning to the court |
| Constitutional right to jury trial under Cal. Const. art. I, §16 for damages sought in §1278.5(g) action | Even if statute silent, when damages sought its gist is legal so constitution guarantees jury | §1278.5(g) is essentially equitable (including remedy-mixing) and, in any event, statute preserves other remedies | No need to decide gist; §1278.5(m) preserves Tameny and other common-law remedies, so plaintiffs may obtain a jury on damages via a Tameny action; statute thus does not violate art. I, §16 |
Key Cases Cited
- Nessbit v. Superior Court, 214 Cal. 1 (Cal. 1931) (early rule denying pretrial writ review of jury-trial denial)
- Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 (Cal. 1941) (broadened "lack of jurisdiction" concept to allow writ review when court exceeds defined powers)
- Grafton Partners L.P. v. Superior Court, 36 Cal.4th 944 (Cal. 2005) (pretrial writ review of jury-related issues assumed in prior practice)
- Crouchman v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.3d 1167 (Cal. 1988) (court addressed jury trial issues via pretrial writ)
- Dyna-Med, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 43 Cal.3d 1379 (Cal. 1987) (specific remedial provisions construed as equitable)
- Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167 (Cal. 1980) (recognized tort of wrongful termination in violation of public policy; provides route to jury trial)