Glover v. City of Santa Barbara

Filed 5/21/15 Glover v. City of Santa Barbara NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

ANTHONY GLOVER, 2d Civil No. B257114 (Super. Ct. No. 1438882) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA,

Defendant and Respondent.

Anthony Glover appeals from the judgment entered in favor of the City of Santa Barbara, respondent. The trial court sustained respondent's demurrer to appellant's complaint without leave to amend. Appellant was formerly employed by respondent. His complaint includes causes of action for discrimination, unlawful termination of employment, and defamation. Before the complaint was filed, respondent's Civil Service Commission (Commission) reviewed appellant's termination and issued a final decision upholding it. Appellant contends that the trial court erroneously ruled that the instant action is barred because he failed to file a petition for a writ of administrative mandate. We affirm. Factual and Procedural Background Appellant's complaint consists of five causes of action. The first, second, third, and fifth causes of action allege violations of section 12940 of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). (Gov.Code, § 12900 et seq.) These causes of action are

entitled "Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Race and Medical Condition," "Harassment on the Basis of Race and Medical Condition," "Failure to Investigate and Take Appropriate Action In Response to Complaint of Harassment," and "Retaliation." The fourth cause of action is for defamation. The complaint alleges as follows: Appellant worked in the Water Resources Distribution Section of respondent's Public Works Department. He was "regularly singled out, belittled, chastised and harassed due to his well-documented medical condition [hypertension and pre-diabetes] and his [African-American] race." Respondent's employees made defamatory statements about appellant. Respondent "used those statements as a purported basis upon which to terminate [appellant's] employment." "The actual motivation" for his termination was "that he [i]s an African American and suffers from a medical condition." Before filing the complaint, appellant sought review of his termination before the Commission. After an evidentiary hearing, the Commission upheld the termination. Appellant sent a letter to the Commission "requesting an appeal of [its] decision." The Commission subsequently "upheld the termination in their final decision." On April 25, 2013, respondent wrote a letter to appellant informing him that the Commission's decision had become final on April 24, 2013. The letter warned: "In accordance with . . . Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any action seeking judicial review of this decision must be filed no later than the ninetieth (90th) day following the day the decision becomes final."1 Instead of seeking judicial review as provided in section 1094.6, appellant filed the instant complaint. Respondent demurred to the complaint. In a six-page ruling, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court concluded that, pursuant to the doctrine of collateral estoppel, appellant's FEHA claims are barred because he failed to file a petition for a writ of administrative mandate challenging the Commission's final decision. (§§ 1094.5-1094.6.) In addition, the court concluded 1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. 2