Page 1
Retaliation Action Against LAUSD Properly Dismissed, C.A. Declares
Former Teacher Failed to Show Even Substantial Compliance With Claim Presentation Requirement, Justice Wiley Says
By a MetNews Staff Writer
|
|
|
JOHN SANDY CAMPBELL teacher |
Div. Eight of this district’s Court of Appeal has determined that a judge properly sustained a demurrer without leave to amend to a complaint filed by a former employee of the Los Angeles Unified School District alleging that her firing constituted whistleblower retaliation, holding that even if substantial compliance with the governmental claim presentation requirement suffices—an issue it did not decide—there was no compliance, at all.
“Simply noting that she previously submitted various racial discrimination and whistleblower complaints is not enough,” Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. said in an opinion filed May 1 and certified for publication yesterday, adding:
“And it is not enough to say the District already knew of the circumstances surrounding Campbell’s claims.”
Wiley also declared that a racial discrimination cause of action was untimely where the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, after investigating and closing the case for insufficient evidence, provided her a notice indicating that she had one year to file a civil action and she waited almost two years to sue. He said that a late-discovery rule did not apply given that her claim with the department named the persons allegedly responsible.
The opinion affirms a judgment of dismissal that followed the action on the demurrer by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael L. Stern. Presiding Justice Maria E. Stratton and Justice Elizabeth A. Grimes joined in the opinion.
Appealing the decision was John Sandy Campbell, a teacher who sued the Los Angeles Unified School District in September 2021 over events leading to her dismissal in August 2017. Campbell represented herself in the litigation.
She was an unsuccessful write-in candidate for a seat on the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education in 2020, coming in a distant fourth in the primary with 48 votes.
In her complaint, amended after the court sustained a demurrer to her first complaint with leave to amend, she alleges that the district retaliated against her for whistleblowing in violation of Labor Code §1102.5 and racially discriminated against her in violation of Government Code §12940.
The district demurred again, asserting that Campbell failed to comply with the Government Code’s claim presentation requirement and that her discrimination cause of action was time-barred. Stern agreed with the district, sustained the demurrer, this time without leave to amend.
Whistleblower Retaliation
Wiley noted that under Government Code §915, “[a] plaintiff suing a public entity for damages must timely present a written claim to the entity before filing suit” and that “this claim presentation requirement is an element of a valid cause of action.”
He pointed out that while Campbell conceded that the claim presentation requirement applied to her whistleblower cause of action, she cited Government Code §§910.8 and 911, which concern procedures for dealing with insufficient claims, and appeared to argue substantial compliance with the requirement would be enough.
Unpersuaded, Wiley noted that the record showed only Campbell’s pre-complaint inquiry to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing and wrote:
“Assuming for purposes of analysis her interpretation of these provisions is correct, Campbell did not demonstrate she substantially complied with the claim presentation requirement. Simply noting that she previously submitted various racial discrimination and whistleblower complaints is not enough.”
He continued:
“Campbell has not shown that any of her complaints went to the right people or contained the information required by statute….Further, Campbell’s amended complaint did not plead compliance with the claim presentation requirement.”
Wiley rejected her unsubstantiated alternative argument that she is exempt from the claim presentation requirement, commenting that she “cites no authority for this point.”
Racial Discrimination
The jurist noted that “[t]he attachments to this pleading show Campbell, in 2017, initiated a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which investigated and closed Campbell’s case after finding insufficient evidence” and “provided Campbell a Right to Sue notice dated Oct. 9, 2018.” The notice informed her that she had one year to file a civil action.
Campbell cited the 1988 California Supreme Court case of Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Company and asserted that a late-discovery rule saved her untimely lawsuit because she could not have known earlier who perpetrated certain wrongful acts against her or the animus behind the acts. Wiley noted that in the Jolly case, then-Justice Edward Panelli (now retired) wrote:
“Once the plaintiff has a suspicion of wrongdoing, and therefore an incentive to sue, she must decide whether to file suit or sit on her rights. So long as a suspicion exists, it is clear that the plaintiff must go find the facts; she cannot wait for the facts to find her.”
Finding her assertions to be without merit, Wiley said that Campbell’s “2017 pre-complaint inquiry to the Department named the administrators who committed transgressions against her and described the supposed racial animus and hostile workplace.”
The case is Campbell v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 2024 S.O.S. 1674.
Campbell was an unsuccessful write-in candidate for a seat on the Los Angeles Unified Board of Education in 2020, coming in a distant fourth in the primary with 48 votes.
According to the website campbellhallschoolforgirls.org, she “transform[ed] her home into a school” and founded Campbell Hall School for Girls which now operates as an independent private school.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company