Issue
In Page v. Los Angeles County Probation Department (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,521, Cal.App. 2 Dist., Nov. 3, 2004), the California Court of Appeal considered whether an employee’s lawsuit claiming violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) should be dismissed because the employee failed to finish the administrative procedure that she had begun with the civil service commission.
Facts
Employee, Marsanell Page, was injured on the job and was unable for several years to return to work as a Detention Services Officer for Employer, Los Angeles County Probation Department. When she was finally able to return to work, Employer did not offer to reinstate her to the same position or to a similar position. Employee filed a grievance with the Los Angeles County Civil Service Commission. Both Employer and Employee objected to the decision and recommendation of the Commission’s hearing officer. Before the Commission had adopted or rejected the hearing officer’s decision, however, Employee filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, and then filed a lawsuit alleging disability discrimination in violation of the FEHA. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit because Employee did not complete the proceedings before the Commission. Employee appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
A government employee who believes she has suffered employment discrimination may choose either to pursue the remedies provided by the FEHA or the remedies provided by internal grievance procedures through a city, county, or state civil service commission. If the employee chooses to pursue the FEHA remedies, she need not first pursue the remedies provided by the applicable civil service commission. However, if the employee first chooses to pursue the civil service commission remedies, she must follow that procedure through to the end.
Here, Employee pursued her remedies through the civil service commission, but did not wait for a final decision from the Commission before filing her FEHA lawsuit. Nor did she file a writ of mandate with the trial court to overturn the Commission’s decision. Thus, her FEHA lawsuit is premature. She must wait for the Commission’s decision, and, if it is unsatisfactory to her, she may then file a writ of mandate asking the trial court to overturn the Commission’s decision. If she is unsuccessful in having it overturned, the Commission’s decision will be binding and she will have no FEHA claim; if she is successful in having the decision overturned, only then may she pursue a FEHA lawsuit. Therefore, the trial court affirmed the order dismissing Employee’s lawsuit.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult