Eldridge v. Sierra View Local Hospital Dist.
Decision Date | 02 October 1990 |
Docket Number | No. F012582,F012582 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Ruth W. ELDRIDGE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SIERRA VIEW LOCAL HOSPITAL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
GEO. A. BROWN, Associate Justice, Assigned. *
Ruth W. Eldridge appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Sierra View Local Hospital District, a public agency, its board of directors and administrator. The appeal raises the issue of whether a local hospital district may lawfully prohibit a person from simultaneously holding the position of hospital district board member and hospital employee.
FACTS
In June or July of 1986 appellant, Ruth W. Eldridge, a nurse employed by Sierra View Hospital, announced her candidacy for a vacant position as a director on the Sierra View Local Hospital District Board of Directors. When the administrator of the hospital district learned of her candidacy, he became concerned about the propriety of a hospital district employee sitting on the board and brought the matter to the attention of the board. The board ultimately concluded that it was not appropriate for an employee to sit on the board while in the employ of the district. The board was of the opinion the two positions were incompatible and fraught with conflicts of interest. In an effort to address the perceived incompatibility, the board passed the following amendment to the bylaws of the hospital district:
Appellant was aware of the bylaw prior to the election. She was reminded of the bylaw after her election to the board and was told that her employment would be terminated immediately if she accepted the position. She nevertheless accepted the position to which she had been elected, and her employment at the hospital was terminated. The termination was solely because she had been elected to the board.
Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandate which claimed Sierra View Local Hospital District, Roger S. Good, administrator of the hospital district, and individual members of the board of directors of the hospital district (collectively referred to as the Hospital), unlawfully terminated her employment. The petition contains seven causes of action. The first three causes of action allege the Hospital violated appellant's civil rights by terminating her employment in violation of her right to substantive and procedural due process (first cause of action), in violation of her right to freedom of speech and assembly (second cause of action) and in violation of her right to equal protection (third cause of action). The petition also alleges her termination was in breach of contract (fourth cause of action), in breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (fifth cause of action), in violation of public policy not to terminate employees for engaging in political activities (sixth cause of action) and in violation of the statutory prohibition contained in Labor Code section 1101 against terminating employees for engaging in political activities. Appellant seeks reinstatement and damages.
In April 1989 the Hospital's motion for summary judgment was granted.
DISCUSSION
Appellant contends the trial court misapplied the law in several respects when it granted the motion for summary judgment. Specifically, she argues the bylaw does not withstand legal scrutiny under established statutory prohibitions, constitutional principles and public policy.
In our democracy the right to seek and hold public office has been accorded special, sensitive protection as a fundamental and valuable constitutional right by our California courts. The Supreme Court has recently described every citizen's political rights:
(Canaan v. Abdelnour (1985) 40 Cal.3d 703, 727, 221 Cal.Rptr. 468, 710 P.2d 268.)
(Id. at p. 714, 221 Cal.Rptr. 468, 710 P.2d 268.)
" (Ibid.)
In Helena Rubenstein Internat. v. Younger (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 406, 418, 139 Cal.Rptr. 473, the court said:
There is no California statute expressly prohibiting a hospital employee from serving on the hospital board of directors. However, with the exceptions noted in the statutory provisions, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 32031 flatly prohibits a local entity from placing any restriction on the political activities of any employee. 2
"Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, or as necessary to meet requirements of federal law as it pertains to a particular employee or employees, no restriction shall be placed on the political activities of any officer or employee of a state or local agency."
Section 3203 follows a declaration in section 3201 which states: "The Legislature finds that political activities of public employees are of significant statewide concern." Taken as a whole, chapter 9.5 of the Government Code is a strong declaration of state public policy protecting the political rights of public employees.
The exceptions contained in chapter 9.5 of the Government Code are narrowly drawn. In sum, section 3204 prohibits the corrupt political influence of or by a public officer or employee. Section 3205 prohibits an officer or employee of a public agency from soliciting political funds or contributions from other officers or employees of the agency. Section 3206 prohibits an officer or employee from participation in political activities while in uniform. Section 3207 authorizes a local agency to establish rules and regulations prohibiting or restricting officers or employees from engaging in political activities during working hours and political activities on the premises of a local agency. Section 3209 authorizes an officer or employee to solicit or receive political funds from fellow employees or officers to promote or defeat passage of a ballot measure which would affect the pay, hours, retirement benefits or other working conditions subject to local agency rules and regulations passed pursuant to section 3205.
Thus the exceptions to the operation of section 3203 do not expressly permit an invasion of an employee's political rights so severe as to totally preclude a public employee from running for or holding public office.
The Hospital argues the hospital bylaw was authorized by section 1126, which in pertinent part provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Santa Clarita Org. for Planning v. Abercrombie
...essential government functions are performed even where a conflict of interest exists." ( Eldridge v. Sierra View Local Hosp. Dist. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 311, 321, 273 Cal.Rptr. 654 ( Eldridge ).) To apply, however, there must exist "no alternative source of decision" ( 2 Cal.Code Regs. § 1......
-
Lexin v. Superior Court
...a government body to act to carry out its essential functions if no other entity is competent to do so (Eldridge v. Sierra View Local Hospital Dist., supra, 224 Cal.App.3d at pp. 321-322; see Olson v. Cory (1980) 27 Cal.3d 532, 537 ), but it requires all conflicted members to refrain from a......
-
Pease v. Zapf, D074405
...protection as a fundamental and valuable constitutional right by our California courts." ( Eldridge v. Sierra View Local Hosp. Dist. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 311, 316, 273 Cal.Rptr. 654.) Thus, we interpret ambiguity, even in term limit measures, "in favor of eligibility to hold office." ( Woo......
-
USD No. 501 v. Baker
...to meet is any less because of one of the posts is other than an `office.'"). But see Eldridge v. Sierra View Local Hospital Dist., 224 Cal. App.3d 311, 319-20, 273 Cal. Rptr. 654, (1990) (holding incompatibility doctrine does not apply to nurse/hospital board situation because nurse is not......