A former Superior Court Commissioner in Sonoma County sued the Superior Court for age discrimination pursuant to the FEHA.
The trial court dismissed the case on grounds that the Superior Court was statutorily protected from such suits by virtue of the discretionary immunity sections of Government Code §§ 815.2(b) and 820.2(b).
In this certified-for-publication decision filed on Friday, the First District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that statutory immunity does not protect against direct public entity liability under FEHA and that there were triable issues of fact relating to the discrimination claim.
As to the immunity claim, the Court found that because the FEHA states unequivocally that no employer, including public entities, may discriminate based on age when making employment decisions, FEHA functions as an exception to the general grant of immunity under section 815.2(b).
And regarding the triable issue of fact, the Court held that -- if evidence showed that someone involved with the executive hiring process of court commissioners told this former commissioner, who had inquired about going back to full time duty, that "they were looking someone younger, maybe in their 40's" -- such
a statement would constitute "direct evidence of discriminatory animus" which would be enough to present to a jury.
The case is DeJung v. Superior Court.
To read the full opinion,
PLEASE CLICK HERE.
- Help for the Injured Worker
