Nina Johnson vs City of Santa Barbara

Case Number

23CV01612

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 04/26/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons discussed herein:

The City of Santa Barbara’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied.

Background:

As alleged in the complaint filed in this action on April 14, 2023, plaintiff Nina Johnson (Johnson) was employed by defendant the City of Santa Barbara (the City) in the City Administrator’s Office from December 1998 until her resignation in 2022. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1, 17, 40.) As alleged in the complaint, during Johnson’s employment with the City, she was responsible for high visibility, high-level, and complex assignments on behalf of the City Administrator and City Council which involved directing interdepartmental teams, serving as the lead staff for numerous City Council committees, presenting a variety of complex issues on behalf of the City and regular interface and dialogue with community leaders. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Johnson received excellent performance reviews and support from community organizations. (Id. at ¶ 21.)

Johnson alleges that, despite her high-level responsibilities, the City misclassified Johnson with a non-executive position, gave Johnson an outdated title, and paid Johnson a salary that was incommensurate with her role. (Complaint, ¶ 22.) Johnson’s male, non-Asian predecessor was paid at a higher rate and classified as an executive while having the same duties, responsibilities, and oversight as Johnson who was never classified as having an executive position. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Johnson was also paid less than a male non-Asian counterpart who worked for the City at the same time as Johnson and who had lesser responsibilities with no staff oversight or direct reports. (Id. at ¶ 26.) In addition, though Johnson performed significant executive functions, she was screened out of interviews and unable to attend career networking events due to her position title. (Id. at ¶ 27.)

After Johnson brought these issues to her managers in 2016, Johnson experienced a demotion for the remainder of her employment with the City. (Complaint, ¶ 29.) Johnson was subjected to blacklisting efforts and rumors in which the City made comments to City managers and recruiters not to hire Johnson. (Id. at ¶¶ 29, 34.) After Johnson submitted a reclassification request, the City removed half of Johnson’s long-time work responsibilities, added a new duplicate position in the office, and hired Matt Fore (Fore) for the position at the top salary step although Fore did not have any direct reports. (Id. at ¶ 30.) The City gave Fore half of Johnson’s work assignments and responsibilities. (Ibid.) The City also eliminated an analyst position reporting to Johnson which forced Johnson to perform the analyst’s duties even though the City added positions overall. (Id. at ¶ 31.) Johnson was excluded from meetings, cut out of work processes, denied access to staff assistance, given low-level duties, denied promotion and special assignment opportunities, and was made to report to a manager instead of the City Administrator and Assistant Administrator as she had during previous years. (Id. at ¶ 32.)

Johnson was further retaliated against when she sought clarity regarding the selection of a contractor for the art elements of an Underpass Project (the project) that were outside the scope of the project’s RFP. (Complaint, ¶ 35.) During a meeting on February 25, 2021, Johnson was accused of trying to derail the project because she expressed these concerns. (Id. at ¶ 36.) Johnson’s job duties were removed, and the City hired a Public Information Officer to take over Johnson’s duties. (Id. at ¶¶ 37, 38.)

After Johnson returned from running for public office in December 2021, it was communicated to Johnson that her few remaining job functions had been reassigned to other staff. (Complaint, ¶ 39.) The City’s response to Johnson raising issues about her pay grade caused Johnson to lose advancement opportunities, suffer a decline in health, and forced Johnson to resign in 2022. (Id. at ¶ 40.)

The complaint alleges eight causes of action: (1) violation of Government Code section 12900 et seq. (the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or FEHA) – harassment and/or discrimination based on gender; (2) violation of FEHA – harassment and/or discrimination based on race; (3) violation of FEHA – retaliation; (4) violation of FHA – wrongful constructive discharge; (5) violation of FEHA – failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; (6) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 – whistleblower retaliation; (7) violation of Labor Code section 1197.5 – Equal Pay Act; and (8) wrongful constructive termination in violation of public policy.

The City filed its answer to the complaint on September 29, 2023, asserting a general denial and 28 affirmative defenses.

The City now moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the sixth cause of action for whistleblower retaliation as well as the eighth cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The City argues that the court has no jurisdiction over these causes of action because Johnson failed to timely file a government claim with the City prior to commencement of this action and that Johnson failed to make an application for leave to present a late claim to either the City or the court.

Johnson opposes the motion, arguing that the City waived its right to raise a timeliness argument because it never notified plaintiff that her claims were late and told plaintiff’s counsel that there was no need to file any further documents to exhaust her remedies. Johnson also argues that the City is estopped from asserting failure to comply with the government claim defense because the City misled Johnson and her counsel regarding the need to make such a claim.

Analysis:

“Like a demurrer, a motion for judgment on the pleadings attacks defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that may be judicially noticed.” (Alameda County Waste Management Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1162, 1174.)

“ ‘The intent of the Tort Claims Act is not to expand the rights of plaintiffs against governmental entities. Rather, the intent of the act is to confine potential governmental liability to rigidly delineated circumstances. [Citation.] [¶] The Tort Claims Act requires that any civil complaint for money or damages first be presented to and rejected by the pertinent public entity [Citations.]. The act creates a bond between the administrative claim and the judicial complaint. Each theory of recovery against the public entity must have been reflected in a timely claim. In addition, the factual circumstances set forth in the claim must correspond with the facts alleged in the complaint. [Citation.]’ ” [Citation.] The aim of the tort claim statutes is to provide sufficient information to enable the public entity to investigate claims and settle, if appropriate, without the expense of litigation, and to take the potential claim into account in fiscal planning. [Citations.]” (Castaneda v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 1051, 1060-1061.)

“ ‘Compliance with the claims provisions is mandatory. [Citations.]’ ” [Citation.] Fulfilling the requirements of the tort claims presentation procedure is a condition precedent to filing suit; it is not an affirmative defense. [Citation.] Thus, an injured party may not maintain an action against a public entity unless it has presented a claim to the entity . . .” (Ibid.)

“A claim shall be presented by the claimant or by a person acting on his or her behalf and shall show all of the following:

“(a) The name and post office address of the claimant.

“(b) The post office address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent.

“(c) The date, place and other circumstances of the occurrence or transaction which gave rise to the claim asserted.

“(d) A general description of the indebtedness, obligation, injury, damage or loss incurred so far as it may be known at the time of presentation of the claim.

“(e) The name or names of the public employee or employees causing the injury, damage, or loss, if known.

“(f) The amount claimed if it totals less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as of the date of presentation of the claim, including the estimated amount of any prospective injury, damage, or loss, insofar as it may be known at the time of the presentation of the claim, together with the basis of computation of the amount claimed. If the amount claimed exceeds ten thousand dollars ($10,000), no dollar amount shall be included in the claim. However, it shall indicate whether the claim would be a limited civil case.” (Gov. Code § 910.)

“The [California Tort Claims] Act’s filing requirement serves to alert a public entity that something happened and point the entity’s investigation in the right direction; it is not designed to eliminate meritorious claims. Stockett v. Ass’n of Cal. Water Agencies Joint Powers Ins. Auth., 34 Cal. 4th 441, 449, (2004) (“ ‘[the statutes] should be given a liberal construction to permit full adjudication on the merits.’ ”) (citation and quotation marks omitted; brackets in original). “ ‘A complaint’s fuller exposition of the factual basis beyond that given in the claim is not fatal, so long as the complaint is not based on an entirely different set of facts.’ ” [Citation.]” (Wormuth v. Lammersville Union School District (2018) 305 F.Supp.3d 1108, 1128.)

“A claim relating to a cause of action for death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than six months after the accrual of the cause of action. A claim relating to any other cause of action shall be presented as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 915) not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.” (Gov. Code § 911.2, subd. (a).)

Despite the City’s argument that Johnson had six months to file a claim, Johnson had one year because her claims are not based on “death or for injury to person or to personal property or growing crops.” Even if Johnson had only six months to file her claim, the City waived that time limit by failure to give notice, pursuant to Government Code section 911.3, within 45 days.

On December 8, 2022, Johnson, through her attorney, sent a letter to assistant attorneys for the City. (City’s Exh. 1.) The letter effectively put City on notice of Johnson’s claims and the basis for those claims.

“If, in the opinion of the board or the person designated by it, a claim as presented fails to comply substantially with the requirements of Sections 910 and 910.2, or with the requirements of a form provided under Section 910.4 if a claim is presented pursuant thereto, the board or the person may, at any time within 20 days after the claim is presented, give written notice of its insufficiency, stating with particularity the defects or omissions therein. The notice shall be given in the manner prescribed by Section 915.4. The board may not take action on the claim for a period of 15 days after the notice is given.” (Gov. Code § 910.8.)

“Any defense as to the sufficiency of the claim based upon a defect or omission in the claim as presented is waived by failure to give notice of insufficiency with respect to the defect or omission as provided in Section 910.8, except that no notice need be given and no waiver shall result when the claim as presented fails to state either an address to which the person presenting the claim desires notices to be sent or an address of the claimant.” (Gov. Code § 911.)

“[A] public entity must treat a notice, such as the notice at issue here, that alerts it to the existence of a claim for monetary damages and an impending lawsuit but fails to comply substantially with the claim presentation requirements of the act, as a defective “ ‘claim’ ” that triggers the operation of sections 910.8, 911 and 911.3. These sections (1) require a public entity to notify a claimant of any insufficiencies of content or timeliness that prevent a claim as presented from satisfying the requirements of the act and (2) provide that failure to give such notice waives any defenses based on those insufficiencies.” (Phillips v. Desert Hospital Dist. (1989) 49 Cal.3d 699, 701-702.)

Johnson effectively presented a government claim on December 8, 2022, which was timely. The City failed to give notice of any insufficiency of the claim and has therefore waived any defects. The court’s conclusion is further supported by the fact that an Assistant City Attorney emailed plaintiff’s counsel and stated: “There is no  requirement to file a tort claim and the FEHA claim was already filed so it appears the administrative remedies have been accounted for.” (Humphrey Dec., Exh. 5.)

The City’s motion will be denied.