Smith v. Orange Unified School Dist. CA4/3

Filed 12/10/13 Smith v. Orange Unified School Dist. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

PAMALA SMITH,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G048333

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00545841)

ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT OPINION et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Linda S. Marks, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Steven Bassoff and Steven B. Bassoff for Plaintiff and Appellant. Parker & Covert, Jonathan J. Mott and Steven Montanez for Defendants and Respondents.

* * *

Plaintiff Pamala Smith filed a petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, challenging her layoff from her position as a Senior Secretary, arguing she had seniority over two other employees whom, she claimed, had been improperly reclassified. The trial court ruled in favor of defendants Orange Unified School District and the Board of Education of Orange Unified School District, finding plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedy by timely filing a grievance and failed to rebut an arbitrator’s ruling her grievance was filed untimely. Plaintiff asserts she had no administrative remedy and thus was not required to file a grievance and also that defendants breached their statutory duty in reclassifying the two employees. The trial court correctly ruled plaintiff had an administrative remedy, i.e., filing a grievance, and her failure to timely exercise it barred a remedy pursuant to her writ petition. Consequently we affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff as an employee of defendants is a member of the California School Employees Association (Union) and subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA includes provisions describing guidelines for determining seniority and setting out layoff procedures. Plaintiff was first employed by defendants in March 1993. In January 2007 she was promoted and classified as a Senior Secretary. She remained in that position through June 29, 2010, when she was laid off from that classification, and was given the position of Instructional Assistant, which resulted in a decrease in pay. On the day she was laid off plaintiff attended a meeting where Jamie Brown, the Executive Director of Human Resources, provided information regarding seniority and explained who was laid off based on seniority. At the time plaintiff was laid off two other employees, Ellen Gomez and Doreen Kearns, each classified as a Senior Secretary, retained their positions, despite the