McDaniel v. Board of Education
Decision Date | 30 April 1996 |
Docket Number | No. B083936,B083936 |
Citation | 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 448,44 Cal.App.4th 1618 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | , 108 Ed. Law Rep. 1225, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3094, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4989 Marceline S. McDANIEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the MOUNTAIN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
James H. McDaniel and Patricia D. Barrett, Ontario, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Liebman, Reiner, Nachison & Walsh, Dennis J. Walsh and Kenneth A. Jew, Los Angeles, for Defendants and Respondents.
Plaintiff and appellant Marceline S. McDaniel, an employee of defendant and respondent Mountain View School District, sued the District, the Board of Education of the Mountain View School District, the individual members of the Board, and the Superintendent of Schools (hereafter collectively referred to as respondent.) Appellant alleged that respondent wrongfully denied appellant's late application to participate in an early retirement program. Contending that this denial was in retaliation for appellant's prior public criticism of the Board, appellant asserted a cause of action for violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 United States Code section 1983. The trial court sustained a demurrer to appellant's complaint, without leave to amend, on the ground of appellant's prior failure to seek judicial review of respondent's action by writ of mandate. We reverse, concluding that because Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 does not apply to the facts of this case, appellant was not required to file a writ of mandate before pursuing her federal cause of action.
Appellant was employed by respondent as a school nurse and was eligible for a one-time early retirement plan. Appellant notified respondent on June 11, 1993, that although she missed the June 1, 1993, deadline, she was electing the plan. Respondent denied appellant's application on the ground it was untimely. Appellant contended a late application could have been accepted as late as June 30, 1993, and that the denial of her application was actually in retaliation against her for criticisms of the Board of Education she made in May and early June, in letters to local newspapers and the teachers' association and at a public Board meeting.
In a formal "Claim for Rights of Early Retirement" dated June 24, 1993, appellant's attorney "reserv[ed] the right to proceed by Traditional Mandamus, and/or Administrative Mandamus, to correct the abuse of discretion exercised in denying Claimant's rights to early retirement...." Appellant's attorney did not do so, but instead filed the instant action on October 27, 1993. Respondent demurred on the ground that appellant's failure to seek mandamus review of the denial of benefits barred the present action for federal civil rights damages and other relief. Appellant contended she was not required to seek mandamus as a prerequisite to a federal civil rights action. The trial court ruled appellant was.
A line of recent cases holds that where an administrative tribunal has rendered a quasi-judicial decision which could be challenged by administrative mandamus pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, a party's failure to pursue that remedy may collaterally estop a federal civil rights action. This "is a form of res judicata, of giving collateral estoppel effect to the administrative agency's decision, because that decision has achieved finality due to the aggrieved party's failure to pursue the exclusive judicial remedy for reviewing administrative action." (Briggs v. City of Rolling Hills Estates (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 637, 646, 47 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, emphasis in original [homeowners failed to seek administrative mandamus to set aside denial of building permit by city council]; Swartzendruber v. City of San Diego (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 896, 903-904, 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 64 [ ]; Miller v. County of Santa Cruz (9th Cir.1994) 39 F.3d 1030, 1034-1035, cert. denied (1995) --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 2613, 132 L.Ed.2d 856 .)
Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, however, applies only to "any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer." (Emphasis added; Keeler v. Superior Court (1956) 46 Cal.2d 596, 599, 297 P.2d 967 ["investigation" of employee's suspension The theory of the issue-preclusion cases cited ante is that when a state agency acting in a proceeding in a judicial capacity resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had adequate opportunity to litigate, federal courts must give the agency's factfinding the same preclusive effect it would have in state courts. (Briggs v. City of Rolling Hills Estates, supra, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Galland v. City of Clovis
...filing a section 1983 action"]. And that is also the holding in a host of other cases. (See, e.g., McDaniel v. Board of Education (1996) 44 Cal. App.4th 1618, 1622, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 448; Hall v. City of Dothan (Ala.1988) 539 So.2d 286, 290; Diedrich v. City of Ketchikan (Alaska 1991) 805 P.2d......
-
Kirchmann v. Unified School Dist., E026060.
...900, 903, 137 L.Ed.2d 55.) The Belanger court concluded the school district was an arm of the state,2 and thereof Education (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1618, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 448.) fore enjoyed Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court noted unlike school districts in most states, California districts......
-
State Bd. of Chiro. Exam. v. Superior Court, C052554.
...as Arbuckle implies: It was a contested proceeding based on opposing evidentiary submissions. (Cf. McDaniel v. Board of Education (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1618, 1621-1622, 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 448 [no hearing of any kind held].) In this case, the SPB was required by law to accept Arbuckle's complain......
-
Kirchmann v. Lake Elsinore School Dist.
...district has immunity as a state instrumentality. (Thorning v. Hollister School Dist. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1598; McDaniel v. Board of Education (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1618.) 2. We use the term "arm of the state" because that is the term typically employed in federal decisions considering wh......