 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Holt v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles6/28/2002
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
THE COURT:
INTRODUCTION
Mary Beth Holt sued the Bellflower Unified School District (School District) alleging she was wrongfully terminated from her position as a counselor because, among other things, she refused to disclose the names of pregnant students. Holt argued this information was confidential under California law. The trial court sustained without leave to amend the School District's demurrer on the basis the disclosure was necessary in order to properly place the pregnant students in a particular educational program.
In sustaining the demurrer the trial court relied upon the fact the School District had implemented that particular educational program for pregnant students - an important fact that was neither pled in the complaint nor properly before the court by judicial notice. The trial court erred in relying upon such extraneous facts when ruling on the demurrer. We therefore grant a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate it's ruling and overrule the demurrer.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In March 2001, the School District terminated Mary Beth Holt from her position as a guidance counselor for Bellflower High and Middle School. In her first amended complaint, Holt alleged that in February 2001 the vice-principal ordered her "to disclose the names of any and all students who had disclosed to that they were pregnant . . . to insist in her counseling sessions with any pregnant students that they transfer out of the regular high school and into Somerset," a program allegedly inferior to the one at Bellflower High School. The vice-principal told Holt the reason for the request was because the school board did not want pregnant girls on the school campus, and they had adopted a policy of transferring pregnant students out of the regular school program.
Holt further alleges she called the California Department of Education out of concern the vice-principal's request was illegal and was told disclosing the names of pregnant students, as well as coercing them to transfer out of the regular school program, was illegal. After expressing her concern to the principal and vice-principal that the directive violated federal and state laws, Holt was told her employment would not be continued the next school year. The Bellflower Board of Education terminated her employment on March 9, 2001. She was told there was "no cause" for the termination.
Holt sued the School District, the principal and vice-principal, and each member of the Bellflower Board of Education. Only three of her five causes of action are relevant here. In the first cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, Holt alleged she was terminated in retaliation for her refusal to follow illegal directives. She alleged the order to disclose the names of pregnant students violated Education Code section 49602, and the directive to transfer the students to Somerset violated section 1681 of Title IX. (See 20 U.S.C. §1681(a).)
In the fourth cause of action, violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, Holt alleged she was terminated in retaliation for disclosing the illegal directives to the Department of Education. In her fifth cause of action, violation of the False Claims Act (Gov. Code, §§12650 et seq.), Holt claimed the School District vio
Page 1 2 3 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|