Wade v. Rackauckas
Filed 4/26/06 Wade v. Rackauckas CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| WALLACE WADE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ANTHONY RACKAUCKAS et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G034650 (Super. Ct. No. 02CC05089) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Philip H. Hickok, Judge. Affirmed.
Silver, Hadden & Silver, Stephen H. Silver, and Dean Weinreich for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Lynberg & Watkins, Norman J. Watkins, and S. Frank Harrell for Defendants and Respondents.
* * *
This case arises out of the contested 2002 election for Orange County District Attorney, in which incumbent District Attorney Anthony Rackauckas was challenged by Deputy District Attorney Wallace Wade. Rackauckas won the election and immediately transferred Wade and several of his supporters from the Criminal Division to the Family Support Division, a civil division of the District Attorney's office. A few months later, previously enacted legislation took effect that removed the Family Support Division from the District Attorney's office and reclassified its attorneys from deputy district attorneys to assistant department counsel.
Wade and the other transferred attorneys filed a complaint against Rackauckas, the County of Orange, and others in April 2002, alleging that Rackauckas transferred them in retaliation for opposing him in the election, resulting in a violation of their first amendment rights under both the California and United States Constitutions and violations of their statutory rights to engage in political activities. After the evidence was presented to a jury, the court found the statutory claims were barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the constitutional claims were not supported by the weight of the evidence. On appeal, the plaintiffs challenge these rulings. We affirm.
FACTS
The plaintiffs are Wade, Guy Ormes, Constance Bailey, and Vickie Hix. The fourth amended complaint alleged that before their transfer, the plaintiffs were all career prosecutors employed in the Criminal Division of the District Attorney's Office. Bailey, Ormes, and Hix supported Wade's candidacy by publicly endorsing him, distributing campaign material, and hosting or appearing at his fundraisers. Bailey was subpoenaed by the Orange County Grand Jury and testified during its investigation of Rackauckas and his administration. All the political speech and conduct engaged in by the plaintiffs was in compliance with the County's policy which specifically allows employees to engage in political activity off-duty without fear of discrimination.
The first cause of action alleges the defendants had violated the plaintiffs' rights to freedom of speech and to petition, which are guaranteed in Article 1 of the California Constitution, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages. The second cause of action alleges the County had violated Labor Code sections that prohibit adverse action against an employee for engaging in lawful conduct during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises. The third cause of action alleges the County had violated Labor Code section 1101 by making, adopting, or enforcing a rule or policy that â€
