Hood

Hood v. Compton Community College District

Good Law
127 Cal. App. 4th 954·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 398·2005 Daily Journal DAR 3467·26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 180·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2544
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 24, 2005B169632California4,927 words

Opinion

Opinion

Suzukawa, J.

Plaintiffs Ernestine Hood, Margie M.L. Miles, and Manette Wesley, who were classified employees assigned to the staff of the Personnel Commission of the Compton Community College District (Personnel Commission), sued the Compton Community College District (District) for constructive discharge and other employment-related claims. The District obtained summary judgment on the erroneous theory that the Personnel Commission, and not the District, was the plaintiffs’ employer. The plaintiffs then sued the Personnel Commission, which obtained summary judgment on the theories that: (1) plaintiffs had failed to file a tort claim with the Personnel Commission pursuant to the Government Code (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq.); and (2) plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies with regard to their claims against the Personnel Commission.

In the published portions of the opinion (all but parts II and III), we reverse the summary judgment for the District because under Education Code section 88084, the District is the employer of the Personnel Commission’s staff, who are classified employees of the District. Given our determination that plaintiffs are classified…

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.