PLAMER

Palmer v. Regents of University of California

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 899·132 Cal. Rptr. 2d 567·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 505·2003 Daily Journal DAR 3880·19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1536
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 8, 2003B154868California17,690 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Perluss, J.

Plaintiff Patricia M. Palmer sued the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) in a common law action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy without first pursuing University of California grievance procedures expressly created to protect employees like Palmer who claim to be victims of retaliation for reporting improper activities. The trial court granted the Regents’ motion for summary judgment based on Palmer’s failure to exhaust the internal remedies available to her. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

1. Palmer’s Termination and Her Complaint for Wrongful Discharge

Palmer was employed for 21 years as a clinical laboratory technologist at the UCLA Medical Center’s Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. In January 1997 the department announced a major restructuring. *902 Palmer and a number of her coworkers were advised they would be laid off effective March 31,1997, but would be permitted to apply for new positions within the restructured department prior to the layoff date. Palmer was also told “as a regular status employee with more than ten years of seniority, you shall have preference for re-employment for three…

Dissenting Opinion

Johnson, J.

I respectfully dissent.

The issue before us is whether the plaintiff in a common law action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy should be judicially required to resort to her employer’s internal grievance procedure when no statute, contractual provision, or pertinent public policy requires her to do so. 1 I would decline to impose such a requirement under the facts and circumstances of this case and would therefore reverse the judgment for defendants.

Under section 70 of the Regents’ Personnel Policies for Staff Members (PPSM), an employee may complain of “a specific management act which is *911 alleged to have adversely affected the employee’s existing terms or conditions of employment” or a management action which violates a provision of the PPSM. Accompanying these two types of complaints is a detailed internal review and appeal process. The PPSM contains a policy against “reprisal or intimidation due to disclosure of improper governmental activities,” i.e., whistleblowing.

In addition to the PPSM, the UCLA manual on Procedures for Reporting Whistle Blowing Complaints (UCLA Procedures) contains its own detailed remedial scheme for employees “alleging…

Opinion

Plaintiff Patricia M. Palmer sued the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) in a common law action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy without first pursuing University of California grievance procedures expressly created to protect employees like Palmer who claim to be victims of retaliation for reporting improper activities. The trial court granted the Regents' motion for summary judgment based on Palmer's failure to exhaust the internal remedies available to her. We affirm.

Palmer was employed for 21 years as a clinical laboratory technologist at the UCLA Medical Center's Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. In January 1997 the department announced a major restructuring. Palmer and a number of her coworkers were advised they would be laid off effective March 31, 1997, but would be permitted to apply for new positions within the restructured department prior to the layoff date. Palmer was also told "as a regular status employee with more than ten years of seniority, you shall have preference for re-employment for three years from the date of layoff."

A committee established to select employees to whom permanent…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.