Opinion ID: 1372779
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Plaintiffs fail to state a contract claim.

Text: Plaintiffs allege that the OAG breached two contracts: (1) Gibson's written transfer agreement transferring her to the Antitrust Law Section along with Goode-Parker's analogous oral agreement, and (2) the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the OAG and Plaintiffs' labor unions. The transfer agreement between Gibson and the OAG provides for her to move from the Health, Education, and Welfare Section of the OAG to the Antitrust Law Section. The agreement provides that, by this Agreement, the Parties intend to fully and completely resolve any and all remaining disputes between them ... and to create the fresh start desired by all. The agreement lists a number of reasonable accommodations to be provided to Gibson, including voice-activated software, a digital voice recorder, an ergonomic chair, and a paralegal to assist her on complex cases. The parties to the agreement reserved the right to reevaluate these accommodations from time to time based on changing circumstances and information. The agreement further represents that the parties discharge each other from any and all claims, that they have not initiated any legal or administrative proceeding against each other, with an exception not relevant here, and that they indemnify each other with regard to attorney fees in connection with the agreement. Plaintiffs asserted in their complaint that the OAG breached the transfer agreement because the OAG denied Gibson the overtime assistance of Goode-Parker, the OAG did not prioritize Goode-Parker's reasonable accommodation assistance over her other work, Plaintiffs were micro-managed and distrusted by their superiors, and Plaintiffs were not assigned significant cases because of their complaints. None of Plaintiffs' complaints are inconsistent with the terms of the transfer agreement. The alleged denials of overtime paralegal support from Goode-Parker and failure to prioritize that assistance over Goode-Parker's other work are not denials of any accommodations specifically set forth in the transfer agreement. The same is true for the allegations of being micro-managed by superiors and not being assigned significant cases: Even if Plaintiffs' allegations are true, they are not breaches of any provision in the transfer agreement. With regard to the MOU, Plaintiffs allege that they were denied certain employment benefits, including flexible work hours. Even if Plaintiffs' allegations are true, however, they cannot form the basis of a breach of contract claim. Under California law, a civil service employee... cannot state such a cause of action as the terms and conditions of civil service employees are fixed by statute, not by contract. Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal.3d 1, 276 Cal.Rptr. 303, 801 P.2d 1054, 1068 (1990); see also Kim v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 80 Cal.App.4th 160, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 10, 12 (2000) ([O]ur Supreme Court has made it clear that civil service employees cannot state a cause of action for breach of contract or breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.); Miller v. State, 18 Cal.3d 808, 135 Cal.Rptr. 386, 557 P.2d 970, 973 (1977) (Nor is any vested contractual right conferred on the public employee because he occupies a civil service position since it is equally well settled that the terms and conditions of civil service employment are fixed by statute and not by contract. (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). [11] Finally, Plaintiffs' contractual claims must fail because Plaintiffs have failed to allege any foreseeable contract damages. The only alleged damages are for emotional and physical distress, neither of which is recoverable on a California contract claim. Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal.4th 503, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 475, 869 P.2d 454, 460 (1994); Sawyer v. Bank of Am., 83 Cal. App.3d 135, 145 Cal.Rptr. 623, 625 (1978). In summary, because there was no breach of any contractual agreement between Plaintiffs and Defendants and because, even if there were, Plaintiffs failed to allege foreseeable damages, Plaintiffs failed to state a contract claim.