Brown

Brown v. County of Los Angeles

Good Law
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 380·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 247·203 Cal. App. 4th 1529·34 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 438
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 1, 2012No. B229993California5,941 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Chavez, J.

Defendant and appellant County of Los Angeles (County) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff and respondent Yvette Brown (Brown) after a jury returned a special verdict in Brown’s favor on her claims for retaliation and for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. The County contends the trial court erred by excluding evidence that Brown’s employment as a psychologist with the County Department of Mental Health (County DMH) required her to obtain a license from the state *1535 Board of Psychology (hereafter Board of Psychology or Board), that Brown understood she had to obtain such a license but failed to do so, and that she was discharged from her employment for failure to obtain a license. Brown maintains that she met the licensure requirements because she came within the exemption accorded by Business and Professions Code section 2910. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that Brown was “licensed” under state law because she came within the “Exempt Setting” of Business and Professions Code section 2910.

Brown did not come within the plain language of Business and Professions Code section 2910. The trial court erred as a matter of law…

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.