 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Moehlman v. De La Sota2/26/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
A public employee who was not promoted sued her employer and several supervisors, alleging that the promotion was denied in retaliation for her earlier complaints about sexual harassment and religious discrimination. The supervisors moved for summary judgment, which was granted on the ground that they are immune. The employee appeals. We affirm.
FACTS
Deputy District Attorney Denise Moehlman, in propria persona, sued the County of Los Angeles, the District Attorney of Los Angeles (Gil Garcetti) and several individuals employed by the District Attorney as supervisors (Curtis Hazell, Richard De La Sota, Sandra Buttitta, and William Hodgman). In her first amended complaint (filed in February 1998), Moehlman sought damages to " edress etaliation" that had occurred on March 1, 1996, and again on November 21, 1997.
In her first cause of action, Moehlman alleged that she had been subjected to sexual harassment while assigned to the Major Narcotics and Forfeiture Division between October 1991 and January 1994; that she had "repeatedly requested reassignment"; and that in January 1994, she was "retaliatorily" transferred to another office (where she was unable to obtain the experience she needed to qualify for promotion) because she had requested reassignment. In July, Moehlman received an unsatisfactory evaluation. In response, she filed a written grievance contesting the evaluation and alleging religious discrimination as well as sexual harassment. For 18 months, she pursued her claims through the administrative process. On March 1, 1996, she was "denied promotion" to Deputy District Attorney III "because of her previous assertions of sexual harassment, religious discrimination, and retaliation and to punish her for asserting her civil rights."
In her second cause of action (added in her first amended complaint), Moehlman alleged the same facts included in her first cause of action, plus a claim that she had been "denied promotion" on November 21, 1997, in retaliation for filing this lawsuit. In both causes of action, Moehlman sought damages for emotional distress and the "lost wages" and benefits she would have received had she been promoted to Deputy District Attorney III.
The individual defendants answered, then moved for summary judgment on the ground that they are immune under Government Code section 820.2. Over Moehlman's opposition, the motion was granted. Moehlman (still in propria persona) appeals.
DISCUSSION
I.
We begin by rejecting Moehlman's claim that " his is a case about sexual harassment . . . ." As framed by her pleading, this is a case about retaliation. It is retaliation that is alleged, and the damages that are sought are for retaliation, not sexual harassment. Indeed, the actual dates of retaliation are alleged -- with the first cause of action addressing the retaliation that " ccurr[ed on] March 1, 1996," and the second cause of action addressing the retaliation that " ccurr[ed on] November 21, 1997." Moehlman conceded as much in the trial court. Accordingly, the issues before the court on the motion for summary judgment (and before us on this appeal) were and are those germane to a claim of retaliation, not sexual harassment or religious discrimination. (Zavala v. Arce (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 915, 926; Orange County Air Pollution Control Dist. v. Superior Co
Page 1 2 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|