Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, S074261.

• Citation: 5 P.3d 874,99 Cal.Rptr.2d 316,24 Cal.4th 61
• Decision Date: 24 August 2000
• Docket Number: No. S074261.,S074261.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (California)
• Parties: Barry JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOMA LINDA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

99 Cal.Rptr.2d 316

24 Cal.4th 61

5 P.3d 874

Barry JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF LOMA LINDA et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. S074261.

Supreme Court of California.

August 24, 2000.

Duchrow & Barker and David J. Duchrow for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Liebert, Cassidy & Frierson, Debra L. Bray, Brian E. Cooper, Los Angeles, and Steven M. Berliner, for Defendants and Respondents.

Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, Donna D. Melby, Marco P. Ferreira, Los Angeles, and Kirk C. Jenkins, San Francisco, for City of Glendale as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendants and Respondents.

KENNARD, J.

In Westlake Community Hosp. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 465, 484, 131 Cal.Rptr. 90, 551 P.2d 410, we held that unless a party to a quasi-judicial administrative agency proceeding challenges the adverse findings made in that proceeding, by means of a mandate action in superior court, those findings are binding in later civil actions.

Does that holding apply to a city employee's discrimination claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)(Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.) and under title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), when the employee fails to have the city's final adverse finding judicially reviewed and set aside? The answer is "yes" as to claims under California's FEHA but "no" as to claims under Title VII of the federal act.

We also hold that a trial court's summary judgment based on the defense of laches must be reviewed de novo.

I.

Our account of the facts is taken from the record before the trial court when it granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Flatt v. Superior Court (1994) 9 Cal.4th 275, 279, 36 Cal. Rptr.2d 537, 885 P.2d 950.) We review the trial court's decision de novo, considering all the evidence set forth in the moving and opposition papers except that to which objections were made and sustained. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c); Artiglio v. Corning Inc. (1998) 18 Cal.4th 604, 612, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 479, 957 P.2d 1313; Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center (1993) 6 Cal.4th 666, 673, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207.)

From January 1991 through July 1993, plaintiff Barry Johnson was the assistant city manager for defendant City of Loma Linda (the City). In 1992, City Manager John Bernardi asked plaintiff to look into a complaint of sexual discrimination made by a female senior planner against community development director Dan Smith. After an investigation, plaintiff concluded the allegations were well founded and, on September 8, 1992, sent Smith a letter of intent to terminate his employment. Thereafter, Smith and the City entered into a settlement, and Smith was suspended for 30 working days.

In April 1993, City Manager Bernardi announced his resignation. Over the next several months, plaintiffs authority over department heads was removed and his principal duties were reassigned.

In June 1993, Acting City Manager Peter Hills told plaintiff he was being laid off because of budgetary problems and his association with former City Manager Bernardi. Plaintiffs employment with the City ended on July 15, 1993. That same day, plaintiff filed a grievance with the City. Four days later, on July 19, 1993, the city council voted to eliminate five positions, including plaintiffs position as assistant city manager.

In September 1993, the City's personnel board rejected plaintiffs grievance, finding that the City had not violated any discrimination laws in discharging plaintiff, and that plaintiffs job had been eliminated for economic reasons. On December 14, the city council upheld the board's decision.

On December 22, 1993, plaintiff filed with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), a discrimination claim against the City, alleging his dismissal was in retaliation for opposing sexual harassment. On December 29, 1994, because his complaint had been on file for more than a year, the department gave plaintiff a "right to sue" letter.¹

On July 14, 1995, plaintiff brought this action in superior court. The third amended complaint, the pleading at issue here, alleged causes of action for, among others, discharge from employment in retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices in violation of Government Code section 12940, subdivision (f), part of the FEHA, and in violation of Title VII. Joined with plaintiff's complaint was a petition for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, challenging the actions of the personnel board and the city council. Plaintiff sought reinstatement, backpay and benefits, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

The superior court granted the City's motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the doctrine of laches barred plaintiff from pursuing his petition for writ of administrative mandate. And because plaintiff had failed to bring a timely judicial challenge to the administrative findings against him, the court concluded that plaintiff was bound by those findings.

The Court of Appeal reversed as to plaintiff's Title VII claim, but in all other respects it affirmed the trial court's judgment. It determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the doctrine of laches barred consideration of plaintiff's petition for a writ of administrative mandate. The Court of Appeal held that plaintiff's failure to timely challenge the administrative finding by the City that his dismissal was for economic reasons barred his FEHA cause of action alleging that his termination was for discriminatory reasons. As to plaintiff's Title VII claim, the Court of Appeal held that because the trial court's laches ruling was not a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata under California law, it was not binding as to the Title VII claim under the United States Supreme Court's decision in University of Tennessee v. Elliott (1986) 478 U.S. 788, 106 S.Ct. 3220, 92 L.Ed.2d 635. We granted plaintiffs, as well as the City's, petition for review.

II.

Asserting that the facts are undisputed, plaintiff argues that the Court of Appeal should have reviewed de novo the trial court's determination that the defense of laches barred his petition for a writ of administrative mandate. Generally, a trial court's laches ruling will be sustained on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support the ruling. (Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center (1980) 27 Cal.3d 614, 624, 166 Cal.Rptr. 826, 614 P.2d 258.) Here, the trial court's finding of laches was the basis for its order granting the City's motion for summary judgment. Summary judgments are reviewed de novo. (Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center, supra, 6 Cal.4th at pp. 673-674, 25 Cal. Rptr.2d 137, 863 P.2d 207.) Thus, the Court of Appeal here erred in reviewing the matter under the deferential abuse of discretion standard.

We disagree, however, with plaintiff that the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the trial court's laches ruling. "The defense of laches requires unreasonable delay plus either acquiescence in the act about which plaintiff complains or prejudice to the defendant resulting from the delay." (Conti v. Board of Civil Service Commissioners (1969) 1 Cal.3d 351, 359, 82 Cal.Rptr. 337, 461 P.2d 617 (Conti), fns. omitted.) Review of a personnel decision of a public agency must be sought promptly. (Vernon Fire Fighters Assn. v. City of Vernon (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 710, 719, 223 Cal.Rptr. 871.) As relevant here, the period of delay to be considered includes the time both before and after the filing of the petition for administrative mandate. (Conti supra, at p. 357, 82 Cal.Rptr. 337, 461 P.2d 617; Vernon Fire Fighters Assn. v. City of Vernon, supra, at p. 719, 223 Cal.Rptr. 871.) Here, that delay exceeds three years.

Plaintiff waited more than 18 months before filing in the superior court his petition for writ of administrative mandate. He was notified on December 28, 1993, of the city council's rejection of his internal administrative appeal. But he did not file his petition for administrative mandate with the superior court until July 14, 1995. We note that Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 requires that a petition for a writ of administrative mandate to obtain judicial review of a decision dismissing a city officer or employee be filed within 90 days of the date the decision becomes final if the city so notifies the employee. (Id., subds. (a), (b), (e), (f).) Although this statute is not applicable here because the City apparently did not notify plaintiff of the statutory 90-day period just mentioned, it underscores the significance of timeliness in challenging personnel decisions such as the one at issue here. Also, plaintiff failed to pursue his administrative mandate petition for more than 18 months after it was filed. He filed his petition in July 1995. Thereafter, he made no attempt to have the administrative mandate matter set for a court hearing. It was not until January 1997 that the superior court held a hearing on the City's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's delay of more than three years from the time the city council upheld the personnel board's decision was unreasonable.

Plaintiff blames local court calendar conditions for the delay that occurred after the filing of his first and second amended complaints. He cites delays arising from the continuance of hearings on the City's demurrers, trial court delays in ruling on the demurrers — including one demurrer the court held under submission for 159 days — and a continuance of the trial. These delays in the trial court do not, however, justify plaintiff's failure to pursue judicial resolution of his petition for writ of administrative mandate by asking the court to set the matter for a hearing. With respect to the court's delays in ruling on the City's demurrers, the demurrers did not challenge plaintiff's petition for writ of administrative mandate, and thus did not...