SCHIFANDO v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES: FEHA Remedies Suffice Without Exhausting City Charter Processes

SCHIFANDO v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES: FEHA Remedies Suffice Without Exhausting City Charter Processes

Introduction

Steve Schifando, an employee of the City of Los Angeles' Parks and Recreation Department, filed a complaint against the city alleging employment discrimination based on his physical disability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Schifando contended that his resignation was coerced due to discriminatory practices by his supervisors related to his hypertension condition. The case raised a pivotal legal question: Must a city employee exhaust both the administrative remedies provided by FEHA and the internal remedies mandated by the city charter before pursuing a disability discrimination claim in superior court?

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of California held that employees do not need to exhaust both FEHA administrative remedies and internal city charter remedies before filing a disability discrimination lawsuit in superior court. Receiving a "right to sue" letter from the Department of Fair Employment and Housing is deemed sufficient to proceed with an FEHA claim. The court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision, which had required exhaustion of both administrative pathways, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this conclusion.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references and builds upon several key precedents:

  • STATE PERSONNEL BD. v. FAIR EMPLOYMENT HOUSING COM. (1985): Affirmed that FEHA provides superior remedies compared to the Civil Service Act, allowing state employees to choose between administrative forums.
  • Ruiz v. Department of Corrections (2000): Established that employees could pursue claims through either the State Personnel Board or FEHA without being forced to exhaust both.
  • WESTLAKE COMMUNITY HOSP. v. SUPERIOR COURT (1976): Highlighted the importance of exhausting internal remedies before seeking judicial intervention.
  • MORENO v. CAIRNS (1942): Reinforced the necessity of exhausting internal administrative remedies under city charters before pursuing court action.
  • JOHNSON v. CITY OF LOMA LINDA (2000): Emphasized that failure to exhaust internal administrative remedies could bind an employee's FEHA claims.

These cases collectively underscore the legal landscape surrounding the exhaustion of administrative remedies and the interplay between FEHA and local administrative procedures.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future employment discrimination cases involving public employees:

  • Flexibility in Choosing Remedies: Employees can select the administrative pathway that best suits their circumstances without being compelled to navigate multiple bureaucratic processes.
  • Judicial Economy: By reducing the requirement to exhaust multiple administrative remedies, the court fosters a more efficient resolution process, alleviating court caseloads.
  • Enhanced Access to Justice: Simplifying the procedural requirements lowers barriers for employees to seek redress, promoting fairness and equity in employment practices.
  • Clarification of Legislative Intent: The decision aligns with the legislative purpose of FEHA to empower employees with robust mechanisms to combat discrimination.

However, it also raises considerations regarding the consistency and potential for conflicting administrative findings when multiple remedies are simultaneously accessible.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Exhaustion of Remedies: A legal principle requiring plaintiffs to utilize all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. This ensures that administrative bodies have the opportunity to resolve disputes internally.
  • Right to Sue Letter: A formal notification issued by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, granting an individual the authorization to file a lawsuit based on their discrimination claim.
  • FEHA Administrative Remedies: Processes established under FEHA, including filing complaints with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which handles investigations, conciliation, and adjudication of discrimination claims.
  • Internal City Charter Remedies: Procedures outlined in the city charter that employees must follow to address grievances, such as filing written demands for reinstatement or compensation within specified timeframes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of California's decision in SCHIFANDO v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES marks a pivotal moment in employment discrimination law, particularly concerning public employees under FEHA. By establishing that exhausting FEHA's administrative remedies alone suffices, the court not only aligns with legislative intent to empower employees but also enhances access to justice by simplifying procedural requirements. This ruling underscores the balance between respecting internal administrative processes and ensuring robust, specialized mechanisms are available for addressing discrimination, ultimately reinforcing the protection of employees' civil rights in the workplace.

Case Details

Year: 2003
Court: Supreme Court of California

Judge(s)

Marvin R. Baxter

Attorney(S)

Law Offices of Robert M. Ball, Robert M. Ball and Loyst P. Fletcher for Plaintiff and Appellant. Law Office of David J. Duchrow, David J. Duchrow and Robert E. Racine for California Employment Lawyers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Charlotte E. Fishman for Equal Rights Advocates as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Brad Seligman for The Impact Fund as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Rothner, Segall Greenstone and Glenn Rothner for California Faculty Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Joannie Chang for Asian Law Caucus as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Madalyn Frazzini for California School Employees Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Beverly Tucker for California Teachers Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Linda Kilb for Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Pat Shiu for Legal Aid Society/Employment Law Center as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. Vicky L. Barker for California Women's Law Center as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. James K. Hahn and Rockard J. Delgadillo, City Attorneys, Leslie E. Brown and Zna Portlock Houston, Assistant City Attorneys, Marie McTeague and Judith D. Thompson, Deputy City Attorneys, for Defendant and Respondent. Best Best Krieger, Arlene Prater and Alison D. Alpert for Sixty-One California Cities as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Jones Day, Elwood Lui, Scott D. Bertzyk and John A. Vogt for County of Los Angeles as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent. Reed Smith Crosby Heafy, Paul D. Fogel, Raymond A. Cardozo; James E. Holst, John F. Lundberg, Eric K. Behrens and Jeffrey A. Blair for The Regents of the University of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Respondent.

Comments