Buckman v. City of L. A.
| Docket Number | B305192 |
| Decision Date | 02 August 2023 |
| Parties | SHIRIN BUCKMAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BC697003 Susan Bryant-Deason, Judge. Affirmed in part reversed in part and remanded.
Law Offices of Brian M. Brown, Brian M. Brown and Rachel Goldstein for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Michael N. Feuer, Hydee Feldstein Soto, City Attorneys Kathleen A. Kenealy, Denise C. Mills, Chief Deputy City Attorneys, Scott Marcus, Chief Assistant City Attorney, Blithe S. Bock, Assistant City Attorney, and Michael M. Walsh, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Appellant.
The City of Los Angeles (city) appeals from a judgment entered following a court trial of this employment action brought against the city by former city employee Shirin Buckman. Buckman's operative first amended complaint (FAC) alleged seven claims against the city following her termination: (1) retaliation for taking Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) (29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.) leave in violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) (Gov. Code, § 12945.2), (2) disability discrimination, (3) perceived disability discrimination, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), (6) failure to pay wages in violation of Labor Code section 221, and (7) illegal collection back of employee's wages in violation of Labor Code sections 221 and 225.5. The trial court found Buckman prevailed on four of the seven causes of action: retaliation for taking FMLA leave, IIED, and the two causes of action based on Labor Code violations. In addition to damages and penalties, the trial court awarded Buckman attorney fees under Government Code section 12965 ().
The city argues the evidence does not support the judgment in favor of Buckman on the retaliation claim, and she cannot recover on the claim because her termination was inevitable. The city further argues the judgment in favor of Buckman on the IIED and the failure to pay wages claims were improper as a matter of law.[1] Finally, the city argues the trial court erred in failing to apportion the attorney fees to limit fees to those related to the retaliation claim.
Buckman cross-appeals, arguing the trial court erred in deducting from the attorney fee award 203 hours of counsel's travel time and declining to award a fee multiplier pursuant to Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122 (Ketchum).
We affirm the trial court's judgment as to retaliation. However, we reverse the judgment as to the IIED claim, as Buckman failed to identify sufficiently extreme or outrageous conduct as a matter of law. We also reverse the judgment as to Buckman's claim for unpaid wages, as we find that Buckman's oral agreement with personnel staff for additional sick and vacation time was unauthorized and unenforceable as a matter of law. We reverse the attorney fees award and direct the trial court to reconsider the award of attorney fees on remand.
Buckman's hiring in 2015
Buckman was first employed by the city from 2005 through 2012 in various capacities, including as a field representative for City Councilmember Jack Weiss, and as a policy analyst with the city's Human Relations Commission under Patricia Villasenor. She voluntarily left her employment with the city in 2012 to attend Whittier Law School.
After graduating from Whittier Law School, Buckman learned from Villasenor about a job opening at the city's Housing and Community Investment Department (HCID) for the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW). There was a conflict in evidence regarding the title of the position. While the position was advertised as an opening for a "Project Coordinator," Buckman testified she was under the impression that she was applying for an executive director position. While she understood the "classification" for the position was "project coordinator," she believed that the position title was different from the classification. She heard various individuals refer to the position as that of executive director. Buckman's predecessor used the title "Executive Director." However, following a reorganization of staff, HCID Executive Director Laura Guglielmo decided any new person hired to this position would use the title "Project Coordinator" to avoid confusion with Villasenor's "Executive Director" title and to more accurately describe the position.
Buckman was hired for the position on November 17, 2015, and began her employment on January 4, 2016. She reported to Villasenor.[2] Buckman understood this was an exempt at-will position and not a civil service job. Buckman was fired from this position on March 9, 2017.
The CSW was established in 1975 as a commission dedicated to promoting gender equality in Los Angeles. During Buckman's 2016-2017 employment at CSW, the commission was staffed by seven appointed commissioners, including Erma Bernard-Gibson, Pamela Bakewell and CSW President Jessica Postigo. Among Buckman's duties at CSW were overseeing administrative functions and providing status reports; facilitating and implementing the commissioners' programs and policy priorities; interacting with the public; raising awareness about the CSW, including event planning and outreach; and creating, implementing, and running the Transgender Advisory Council (TAC), a program within the city's Human Relations Commission.
The oral agreement regarding sick leave and vacation pay
Marcia Ruiz, a personnel records supervisor, communicated the job offer to Buckman, who sought to negotiate a higher salary. However, the salary offered was determined by Buckman's previous city salary.
Buckman claimed she negotiated with Ruiz to use the anniversary dates of her previous employment with the city to calculate her accrued vacation and sick time. Ruiz denied having made such an offer, confirming she lacked the authority to negotiate salary or accrued time. The city took the position that because Buckman's gap between city employments exceeded six months, she accrued vacation and sick time the same as a new hire. Buckman acknowledged this condition of employment during her orientation. However, Villasenor claims Buckman informed Villasenor of the special oral agreement with Ruiz regarding sick leave and vacation time shortly after Buckman was hired.
The city's internal payroll documents, known as PaySR forms, reflected Buckman's earlier anniversary dates were used to calculate her sick leave and vacation time upon the commencement of Buckman's January 2016 employment. Personnel director Alfonso Perez, the individual authorized to approve these forms, signed off on the forms. Also Buckman produced an October 20, 2016 letter she sent to HCID personnel in response to HCID's notification she had received an inaccurate overcalculation of sick and vacation time. In the letter, Buckman stated that in accepting the position of employment, she had "reasonably relied" on the oral agreement with the personnel department regarding sick and vacation time in lieu of the increase in pay she had sought.
The city disputed the existence of an oral agreement. Ruiz denied having offered Buckman extra sick and vacation time and stated she had no authority to make such an offer. While the city acknowledged the PaySR form automatically populated with an individual's dates from previous employment, the city argued this was a flaw in the system that has since been corrected. The city argued Perez's approval of the forms with the previous dates was an oversight. Perez and Ruiz each testified they failed to notice that Buckman's PaySR contained her old employment dates and confirmed those dates should have been updated.
The city's concerns about Buckman
Soon after Buckman commenced her January 2016 employment, she began violating various policies of the city and HCID. Abigail Marquez, HCID's assistant general manager, and Julie O'Leary, the chief management analyst and division chief for HCID, had several communications with Buckman and Villasenor regarding these violations. Guglielmo was concerned that Villasenor's unit lacked appropriate supervision.
Buckman regularly violated the city's parking policy to secure parking for herself. In addition, although Buckman was informed her title was "Project Coordinator," Buckman continuously used the title "Executive Director" in documents and correspondence despite being instructed to stop. Buckman and Villasenor also improperly entered Buckman's work hours using a "Flextime" system that did not work within the city because the city was required under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.) and the collective bargaining agreement to pay overtime for after-hours work. Under the "Flextime" system, if Buckman worked more than eight hours in one day, she worked less than eight hours in another day. Buckman was informed, however, that the city was obligated to pay overtime for after-hours work, and any such work had to be approved in advance in writing.
Buckman lobbied for a city cell phone in order to be available and conduct work after hours. Buckman's request was denied, as her position was not intended for after-hours work.
In March 2016, a meeting was requested by Guglielmo and held regarding concerns about Buckman. The meeting was attended by Marquez, O'Leary, Villasenor and Buckman. The meeting's goal was to ensure Buckman complied with HCID policy and thus avoid termination. The primary issues addressed were Buckman's title and overtime.
Guglielmo found Buckman's attitude...
To continue reading
Request your trial