Saavedra v. ORANGE CTY. CONSOL. TRANSP. ETC.

California Court of Appeal Dec 10, 1992 No. G012339Published

Before: Sonenshine

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an individual defendant may be sued for employment discrimination even if not named as a charged party in the administrative complaint, provided they were identified in the body of the complaint. However, the court ultimately affirmed the judgment because the jury's verdict in favor of the employer on respondeat superior grounds collaterally estopped the plaintiff from pursuing the individual defendant.

Issues

Whether a plaintiff is barred from suing an individual for employment discrimination if that individual was not named as a charged party in the administrative complaint.
Whether a jury verdict in favor of an employer on respondeat superior grounds precludes further litigation against an individual employee for the same underlying conduct.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The function of an administrative complaint is to provide the basis for an investigation into an employee's claim of discrimination against an employer, and not to limit access to the courts.”

“By finding CTSA blameless, the jury a fortiori absolved Winterbottom.”

11 Cal.App.4th 824 (1992) 14 Cal. Rptr.2d 282 CAROLYN SAAVEDRA, Plaintiff and Appellant,

ORANGE COUNTY CONSOLIDATED TRANSPORTATION SERVICE AGENCY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Docket No. G012339. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three.

December 10, 1992. [825] COUNSEL

Grace E. Emery for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Parker, Covert & Chidester, Clayton H. Parker and John E. Hayashida for Defendants and Respondents.

OPINION

SONENSHINE, J.

Carolyn Saavedra began working for Orange County Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) in 1982 as a bus driver and was promoted [826] regularly. She worked as a clerk and an office service assistant. By 1990, Saavedra was an office service supervisor. In February, she returned to work after several weeks of sick leave. She was told her position had been eliminated and she was again to be a bus driver. All of her previous reviews had been favorable, but on the day of her demotion she was rated less than competent by her supervisor, Greg Winterbottom.

Unhappy, Saavedra resigned and shortly thereafter filed a complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). The issue was unresolved, and Saavedra filed the underlying complaint alleging three causes of action: (1) employment discrimination (Gov. Code, § 12940)[1] against CTSA and Winterbottom, (2) wrongful termination against CTSA, and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress against CTSA and Winterbottom.

CTSA and Winterbottom moved for summary adjudication, claiming Saavedra's second cause of action was barred because she was an at-will employee. The first and third causes of action, they maintained, were barred because she had not named Winterbottom in her DFEH complaint and, moreover, the third cause of action was preempted by workers' compensation.

Saavedra v. ORANGE CTY. CONSOL. TRANSP. ETC.

AI Brief

OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III

NOTES

AI Brief