Hamilton v. Cal. Exposition and State Fair
Filed 3/30/06 Hamilton v. Cal. Exposition and State Fair CA3
Received for posting 5/3/06
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
----
| CLAIRE HAMILTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA EXPOSITION AND STATE FAIR et al., Defendants and Respondents. | C048293 Sup.Ct. No. 03AS04326
|
The trial court sustained a demurrer on a petition for writ of mandate. Plaintiff appeals the judgment on the writ of mandate. She contends that the requirement to exhaust judicial remedies does not apply because (1) the action was not litigated in a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding; (2) legislative history establishes that judicial exhaustion was not required; (3) defendant was not obligated to petition SPB for a hearing; and (4) requiring exhaustion would bar private action in virtually all cases. We will reject these contentions and affirm.
FACTS[1]
Defendant California Exposition and State Fair (Cal Expo) is a public agency of the State of California operating in Sacramento County. Defendants Norbert Bartosik and Brian May are the general manager and assistant general manager of the Cal Expo respectively. Defendants employed Plaintiff Claire Hamilton as a permanent employee from 1988 until August 2002.
As a contract officer, plaintiff developed, wrote, and managed contracts between Cal Expo and various persons and entities. In 1994, shortly after Bartosik became general manager, plaintiff Hamilton reported to him about Cal Expo's alleged improper competitive bidding violations. Bartosik became angry and altered the procedure to avoid review of contracts up to $10,000 by Hamilton.
In July 1995, Hamilton disclosed these alleged violations to her supervisor, Peter Sugar, and provided a copy to Bartosik. Plaintiff claims the violations persisted. According to plaintiff, Cal Expo snubbed, ostracized, and displayed contempt for Hamilton. She also found it difficult to get services from others who were following management's instruction and lead. In early 1998, Hamilton reported an additional alleged improper governmental activity to her supervisor. A short time later, Cal Expo allegedly changed Hamilton's work hours as compared to other employees and attempted to impose a requirement that she document her activities in 15 minute increments. In addition, she claims her supervisors began soliciting complaints against her and accused her of vague character deficiencies.
In late 1999, Bartosik relocated her work space. Plaintiff complained about the move from an office to a busy hallway to her superiors. During what turned out to be her last year with Cal Expo in 2001, Hamilton protested against alleged sexual harassment and another contracting violation to her superiors and the department's attorney. She claims Cal Expo managers failed to rectify either situation. Instead they retaliated against her by publicly humiliating her, imposing unreasonable restrictions on her alternate work schedule, and giving her an untenable workload.
On August 23, 2004, plaintiff filed a whistleblower complaint against Cal Expo with the State Personnel Board (SPB). SPB issued a Notice of Findings of â€
