Sheridan v. Touchstone Television Productions, LLC
193 Cal. Rptr. 3d 811
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Nicollette Sheridan, hired by Touchstone Television to play on Desperate Housewives, alleged Marc Cherry struck her during a 2008 rehearsal and that she complained to Touchstone.
- Touchstone did not renew her contract for season 6; Sheridan sued alleging retaliatory termination in violation of Labor Code §6310 (complaint about unsafe working conditions).
- After an earlier appeal (Touchstone I) the trial court allowed Sheridan to amend her complaint to allege a §6310 claim; Sheridan filed the operative second amended complaint.
- Touchstone demurred, arguing Sheridan failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Labor Code §§98.7 and 6312 (i.e., file with the Labor Commissioner); the trial court initially sustained the demurrer based on MacDonald but later vacated/reconsideration disputes ensued.
- The Legislature amended the Labor Code in 2013 (adding §244(a) and §98.7(g)) to state exhaustion is not required; the appellate court considered whether exhaustion was ever required under pre-2013 law and whether Sheridan needed to exhaust before suing under §6310.
Issues and Key Positions
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of Labor Code administrative remedies under §§98.7 and 6312 was required before filing a civil suit under §6310 | Sheridan: §§98.7 and 6312 use permissive "may" language, so exhaustion was not required; 2013 amendments merely clarified existing law | Touchstone: prior case law (e.g., MacDonald) required exhaustion; courts should enforce administrative exhaustion before judicial suits | The court held exhaustion was not required: pre-2013 §§98.7 and 6312 permitted (did not mandate) filing with the Labor Commissioner; 2013 legislative changes merely clarified the law; demurrer reversal |
Key Cases Cited
- Touchstone Television Productions v. Superior Court, 208 Cal.App.4th 676 (appellate decision remanding to permit §6310 claim)
- MacDonald v. State of California, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 520 (app. depublished decision holding exhaustion required; not precedential after depublication)
- Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280 (discussing exhaustion where statute explicitly required administrative remedies)
- Campbell v. Regents of Univ. of California, 35 Cal.4th 311 (exhaustion required where institutional policy/statute mandated internal remedies)
- Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles, 172 Cal.App.4th 320 (held §98.7 did not require exhaustion before filing suit)
- Satyadi v. West Contra Costa Healthcare Dist., 232 Cal.App.4th 1022 (held 2013 amendments clarified existing law that exhaustion is not required)
- McClung v. Employment Development Dept., 34 Cal.4th 467 (explaining when legislative clarification may be considered where courts have not definitively interpreted a statute)