In Basurto v. Imperial Irrigation District, Case No. D058353 filed on November 8, 2012, the California Court of Appeal’s Fourth District held that because a terminated employee was able to present all arguments about his termination at an internal grievance hearing, the employee could not later present civil claims of age and/or race discrimination since the employee never raised those specific claims during the grievance hearing, which was sufficiently “judicial” to afford due process.
Basurto was terminated from his job of 31 years after he caused a serious auto accident while under the influence of alcohol. Basurto participated in two hearings pursuant to the Imperial Irrigation District’s (the “District Board”) internal grievance procedures at which time he did not raise any allegations of discrimination, wrongful termination, bias or violation of due process. The District Board concluded that Basurto’s employment discharge was consistent with the District’s policies, was supported by evidence, and specifically found that the penalty imposed on him was no different than that imposed on other similarly situated District employees.
After obtaining a right-to-sue notice under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Basurto filed a civil complaint alleging age/race discrimination and wrongful termination. He also filed two petitions for a writ of mandate arguing that he was denied due process in the administrative proceedings, the second of which was an evidentiary adversarial hearing. The trial court denied the second writ. The trial court also granted the District’s motion for summary judgment, concluding the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata barred Basurto’s civil discrimination claims. The court said that the employee cannot circumvent the doctrines by “cherry-picking which facts and theories to raise at his administrative hearing.”
The appellate court confirmed the trial court’s granting of summary judgment. The appellate court held that the District’s second hearing procedures were sufficiently “judicial” in character for the doctrine of collateral estoppel to bar his civil claims. The court observed that Basurto’s internal grievance hearing before the District Board “had many of the indicia of an actual trial” because it was conducted in an impartial manner, testimony was received under oath, the parties were allowed to examine and cross-examine witnesses, make oral and written argument, and a verbatim record of the proceeding was created. Accordingly, Basurto was afforded due process.
The court relied on the California Supreme Court case of Johnson v. City of Loma Linda, 24 Cal.4th 61 (2000), and held that the District Board’s administrative hearing “determination is final and conclusive as to Basurto’s FEHA discrimination and breach of contract claims, in that the District has proven that Basurto’s discharge was for nondiscriminatory reasons and for good cause.”
This case illustrates how an employee’s civil claims can be barred by an administrative hearing determination if the hearing is “a judicial-like adversary proceeding.”
This document is intended to provide you with information about employment law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions.