Bockover

Bockover v. Perko

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 938·28 Cal. App. 4th 479·34 Cal. Rptr. 2d 423·94 Daily Journal DAR 13257·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7233
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 31, 1994A061812California4,410 words

Opinion

Opinion

Chin, J.

Margaret Bockover appeals from a judgment the trial court entered after sustaining the demurrer of respondents Robert Perko, Frank Robles, Richard Van Slyke, Joseph E. Krueger, and the Regents of the University of California, individually and doing business as Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Laboratory). She contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

The Laboratory hired Bockover in December 1986 as a protective service officer, and she began work on December 22 of that year. In its employment offer, the Laboratory informed Bockover that her employment was “contingent upon” her receipt of a “ ‘Q’ clearance” from the United States Department of Energy (DOE). Section K.IV.1 of the Laboratory’s personnel policies and procedures manual (Manual) provided that “[cjareer employees who have been denied a Q clearance, or whose Q clearance has been withdrawn, or who have not been granted a Q clearance by the [DOE] within a reasonable amount of time shall be released.”

By letter dated February 6, 1989, Van Slyke, the manager of the Laboratory’s protective force,…

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.