Froyd

ORDER

Plaintiff, a former dispatcher for the City of Rio Vista Police Department, brought this action alleging sexual harassment and a retaliatory constructive discharge. She predicated the jurisdiction of this court upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343 , and appends to her 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 , 1985 and 1986 claims a variety of state claims. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 , 86 S.Ct. 1130 , 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966). Among those claims, she alleges that she was constructively discharged in retaliation for reporting to the appropriate city officials that she was sexually harassed by a sergeant in the department. Defendants have brought a motion for summary judgment attacking each of plaintiff’s causes of action. This published decision will be limited to a consideration of the defendants’ attack upon plaintiff’s state “wrongful discharge” cause of action, asserting that it is preempted by California’s Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”), California Government Code sections 12920, et seq.

The narrow question that is tendered is whether plaintiff’s cause of action sounding in tort, and described under the rubric “wrongful discharge,” has been displaced by FEHA. Two questions are thus…