Issue
The California Supreme Court recently considered the issue of whether a dismissed government employee could argue theories of illegal motivation that he did not specify in the notice of claim required by the California Tort Claims Act. (Stockett v. Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority (2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,311, Cal., Nov. 1, 2004))
Facts
After Employee, Jerry Stockett, was terminated from his job with Employer, the Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority, he presented a notice of claim under the California Tort Claims Act, Government Code Sections 810 et seq. He alleged in the notice of claim that he was wrongfully terminated for supporting a co-employee’s sexual harassment claim and for whistleblowing regarding failure to use the competitive bidding process. After Employer denied the claim, Employee filed a lawsuit, alleging additional theories for why he was wrongfully terminated – retaliation for objecting to conflicts of interest and exercising his free speech rights. At trial, the court presented to the jury Employee’s theories regarding conflicts of interest, free speech, and opposing sexual harassment. The jury awarded Employee $4.5 million in damages and Employer appealed.
California Supreme Court Decision
Before suing a government entity for money or damages, a person must file a notice of claim with the government entity that states the date, place, and other circumstances of the occurrence and generally describes the injury, damage, or loss suffered. (Gov. Code §§ 910, 945.4) The notice of claim must be specific enough to allow the government entity to investigate and evaluate the claim.
Employer argued that, because Employee did not include the conflict of interest and free speech theories in his notice of claim, he could not present those theories to the jury. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that Employee had stated the date and place of his termination; named the responsible officers and agents; generally stated the circumstances of his termination; and stated his termination was wrongful because it violated public policy. Thus, he generally notified Employer that he would be presenting a wrongful termination cause of action. While Employee presented new theories in his lawsuit about why his termination was wrongful, he still had only one “cause of action” – wrongful termination. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that Employee’s “free speech and conflict of interest theories simply elaborated and added detail to his wrongful termination claim by alleging additional motivations and reasons for [Employer’s] single action of wrongful termination.”
Employer had sufficient information to investigate and evaluate the merits of Employee’s claim, because the notice of claim notified Employer that its act of wrongfully terminating him caused him specific injury and the notice named the responsible agents. Thus, the trial court correctly presented the conflict of interest and free speech theories to the jury.
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.