LLOYD v. LOS ANGELES PART II
Lloyds claim he suffered a retaliatory dismissal for whistleblower activity did not constitute a claim of discrimination on the basis of a non-merit factor within the meaning of rule 25.01 of the Countys Civil Service Rules (rules). Therefore, Lloyd was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies under the Countys internal rules. Court also hold Lloyds causes of action alleging statutory violations of the Labor Code are not barred by his failure to exhaust the administrative remedy afforded by Labor Code section 98.7. There is no requirement that a plaintiff pursue the Labor Code administrative procedure prior to pursuing a statutory cause of action. (Daly v. Exxon Corp. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 39, 46, review den.; Murray v. Oceanside Unified School Dist. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1359, review den.)
We further hold Lloyds common law tort claims against the County, alleging retaliation and wrongful termination in violation of public policy, are barred by Government Code section 815s elimination of common law tort liability for public entities. (Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876, 899.) In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we address the merits of Lloyds other causes of action. Court conclude the County met its burden to establish a legitimate justification for its employment decisions, and that Lloyd failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to whether the Countys reasons were pretextual. Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Comments on LLOYD v. LOS ANGELES PART II