Allen v. City of Long Beach
Filed 8/4/06 Allen v. City of Long Beach CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| CAROLINE ALLEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, Defendant and Appellant. | B182722 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NC030814) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elizabeth Allen White, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert E. Shannon, City Attorney and Barry M. Meyers, Deputy City Attorney for Defendant and Appellant.
Law Office of Gene H. Shioda and Gene H. Shioda for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant City of Long Beach (the City) appeals from a judgment entered after a jury trial in favor of respondent Caroline Allen (Caroline). We affirm.
CONTENTIONS
The City contends that: (1) the marital policy of the City's police department (the Department) did not violate California law; (2) there was no evidence to support a finding of discrimination based on marital status; and (3) the award for loss of earnings as damages was unjustified as a matter of law.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Caroline was employed by the Department as a patrol officer in the patrol bureau on December 1, 1994. She filed a complaint against the City, Dolores Barrows, Robert Luman, and Curtis Shur[1] on September 27, 2001, seeking damages for: discriminatory conduct based on marital status, wrongful termination, and retaliatory conduct in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (f)).[2]
The Department is made up of four bureaus: investigations, support, patrol, and administration. The bureaus are divided into divisions, which are split up into sections. Within each section are details to which each officer is assigned. The investigations bureau is made up of a detective division, special investigations division, and youth services division. The detective division is divided into the adult investigations section, family services section, and the criminalistics section. The adult investigations section consists of the following details to which officers are assigned: auto theft, burglary, computer crimes, forgery/fraud, homicide/missing persons, robbery, violent crimes, property, and polygraph. A division is headed by a commander, a section is headed by a lieutenant, and a sergeant is in charge of each detail.
The City adopted a marital policy in March 1998, prohibiting one spouse from supervising another, and prohibiting the appointment of one spouse to a position where a potential conflict of interest or other hazard would be greater for married couples than for other persons.[3]
Robert Luman, chief of police of the Department during the relevant time period, testified that in 1998, two officers married to each other and working in the same detective detail, asserted the spousal privilege during an investigation. He stated that as a direct result of that incident, the Department established a marital policy prohibiting spouses from working within the same division. He testified the marital policy was necessary to safeguard the community and forestall a potential conflict of interest.
Before he adopted the policy, Luman did not hire a consultant to analyze the impact the policy would have on married couples. Nor did he determine how many married couples worked in the Department. However, he discussed the issue with his daughter and son-in-law, who were both employed by the Department.
Luman believed that implementation of the policy at the division level was reasonable because officers could still gain experience in different divisions. He stated that the restriction against married couples would be too onerous at the bureau level and was not broad enough at the detail level. However, Luman testified that he could not recall if any officers in the forgery/fraud and violent crimes detail ever worked together. In addition, the forgery/fraud and violent crimes details were located on different floors in the Department.
In December 1996, Caroline married Jim, a police officer also employed by the Department as a patrol officer in the patrol bureau. After a year, Jim transferred to the violent crimes detail, within the adult investigations section of the detective division. In April 1999, Caroline applied for a position in the forgery/fraud detail which was also within the adult investigations section of the detective division. She was not granted an interview, and her application was rejected, based on the Department's marital policy that prohibited spouses from working in the same division. Caroline and Jim resigned from the Department.
At trial, Caroline testified that the marital policy was overly restrictive because she could not work in the detective division as long as her husband worked there. She testified that she could have been assigned to other details in the detective division that would not have overlapped with her husband's assignments. She further stated that officers from different divisions frequently interacted with each other.
A jury awarded Caroline $18,823 for loss of past earnings, $300,000 for loss of future earnings, and $5,000 for emotional distress damages as to the cause of action for discrimination based upon marital status. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the City on the causes of action for wrongful termination and retaliatory conduct.
The trial court denied the Department's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and motion for partial new trial.
This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
I. The evidence supports the jury's finding that the Department's marital policy was not a reasonable regulation
The City urges that as a matter of law, the marital policy prohibiting spouses from working in the same division was a reasonable regulation under section 12940 and California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 7292.5, subdivision (a). We disagree and conclude that substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that the Department's marital policy was not a reasonable regulation.
â€
