Wassmann v. S. Orange Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist.
24 Cal. App. 5th 825
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Wassmann, an African‑American tenured librarian at Irvine Valley College, was charged with unprofessional conduct, unsatisfactory performance, and evident unfitness and was dismissed effective April 28, 2011 after a Statement of Decision by the District.
- Wassmann requested and received a five‑day administrative hearing before an Office of Administrative Hearings ALJ (January 2012); the ALJ issued a 20‑page decision finding cause to dismiss.
- Wassmann petitioned for writ of mandate in superior court seeking review of the ALJ decision; the superior court denied the petition in August 2013, and judgment entered for the District.
- In December 2013 Wassmann obtained a DFEH right‑to‑sue notice and sued the District, two supervisors, and two union officers asserting FEHA claims (race, age, harassment), IIED, wrongful termination, and related claims.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding FEHA claims barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel and/or failure to exhaust/timeliness; IIED was barred by the two‑year statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ALJ decision + mandamus judgment preclude relitigation of wrongful‑termination FEHA claims | Wassmann argued she raised race at the ALJ and that FEHA claims should proceed | Defendants argued the administrative proceedings (and writ denial) had preclusive effect on whether there was cause to dismiss | Held: Res judicata / collateral estoppel bar FEHA claims to the extent they seek relief for termination because ALJ proceeding had judicial character and Wassmann exhausted and lost judicial review |
| Whether FEHA claims for non‑termination injuries were timely / exhausted with DFEH | Wassmann alleged other harms (humiliation, emotional distress) and obtained right‑to‑sue in 2013 | Defendants: DFEH charge was untimely (must be filed within 1 year of last unlawful act; last act was April 28, 2011) | Held: Claims for injuries other than termination are barred for failure to timely exhaust administrative remedies (DFEH filing >1 year after termination) |
| Whether non‑party union officers (Long, Schmeidler) are collaterally estopped from aiding/abetting FEHA claims | Wassmann sought to hold them liable for aiding/abetting discrimination/harassment | Defendants: They may defensively invoke collateral estoppel because the issue of cause was litigated and lost | Held: Collateral estoppel applies defensively; Wassmann cannot relitigate cause or show termination was pretext to hold them liable for aiding/abetting |
| Whether IIED claim is timely or tolled by administrative process | Wassmann alleged IIED from July 2009–April 2011 and argued tolling while pursuing administrative remedies | Defendants: IIED has a two‑year statute of limitations and was not tolled by the Education Code proceedings; plaintiff could have sued earlier | Held: IIED time‑barred (Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1); equitable tolling did not apply because administrative proceeding could not award common‑law damages and plaintiff could have pursued IIED suit concurrently |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonald v. Antelope Valley Community College Dist., 45 Cal.4th 88 (Cal. 2008) (FEHA exhaustion and equitable tolling principles; administrative remedies and tolling analysis)
- Runyon v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 48 Cal.4th 760 (Cal. 2010) (administrative findings can have preclusive effect when proceedings possess judicial character)
- Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal.4th 61 (Cal. 2000) (binding effect of adverse administrative civil‑service findings on subsequent FEHA claims)
- Castillo v. City of Los Angeles, 92 Cal.App.4th 477 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (applying collateral estoppel/exhaustion where administrative hearing rejected wrongful discharge and later FEHA suit was barred)
- Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 37 Cal.4th 921 (Cal. 2006) (factors showing administrative proceedings have judicial character for preclusion)
- Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035 (Cal. 2009) (elements and limitations law for intentional infliction of emotional distress)