Saavedra v. Orange County Consolidated Transportation Service Agency

California Court of Appeal Dec 10, 1992 No. 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 relitigating the individual's liability.

Issues

Whether an individual defendant must be named as a charged party in a DFEH administrative complaint to be subject to a subsequent lawsuit.
Whether a jury verdict finding an employer not liable under respondeat superior 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.”

“Saavedra cannot be barred from suing Winterbottom because she did not file an administrative complaint against him.”

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

Opinion

SONENSHINE, J. I

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.

The court denied the motion as to the second cause of action, granted it as to the preemption allegation against CTSA and granted it as to the first and third causes of action against Winterbottom.2

The jury found against Saavedra on the remaining causes of action. She raises only one issue on appeal: She should have been able to proceed against Winterbottom despite her failure to specifically name him in the administrative complaint.

Section 12960 delineates the procedures by which aggrieved employees are to state their complaints. It provides in part: “Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an alleged unlawful practice may file with the department a verified complaint in writing which shall state the name and address of the person, employer, labor organization or employment agency alleged to have committed the unlawful practice complained of and which shall set forth the particulars thereof and contain such other information as may be required by the department.”

Saavedra v. Orange County Consolidated Transportation Service Agency

AI Brief

SONENSHINE, J. I

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief