Opinion ID: 706026
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Jurisdictional Requirements of the California Tort Claims Act.

Text: 35 The PUC next argues that the Plaintiffs' state tort claim for violation of public policy 6 should have been barred because the Plaintiffs failed to comply with notice provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, Cal.Gov't Code Secs. 900 et seq. The PUC contends that the Plaintiffs used the state tort claim to introduce prejudicial emotional distress evidence, and points out that the jury awarded compensatory damages for loss of earnings and for emotional distress for violation of public policy. 36 The California Tort Claims Act requires, as a condition precedent to suit against a public entity, the timely presentation of a written claim and the rejection of the claim in whole or in part. Snipes v. City of Bakersfield, 145 Cal.App.3d 861, 193 Cal.Rptr. 760, 762 (Cal.App.1983). Where compliance with the Tort Claims Act is required, the plaintiff must allege compliance or circumstances excusing compliance, or the complaint is subject to general demurrer. Id. Although compliance with the Tort Claims Act is not required for state law FEHA claims, Id. 193 Cal.Rptr. at 765-66, the PUC contends that compliance is required for the public policy tort. The PUC attempted to dismiss the tort claim before trial, but the court ruled that it waited too long to assert the ground for dismissal. 37 This issue is moot. The jury awarded damages as follows: ADEA Federal Law Damages: Mr. Crommie 38 Loss of earnings and Benefits: $63,460 39 Liquidated Damages: $63,460 Mr. Mangold 40 Loss of earnings and Benefits: $65,462 41 Liquidated Damages: $65,462 FEHA State Law Damages: Mr. Crommie 42 Loss of earnings and Benefits: $63,460 43 Emotional Distress: $25,000 Mr. Mangold 44 Loss of earnings and Benefits: $68,590 45 Emotional Distress: $30,000 46 California Law, Wrongful Employment Action in Violation of Public Policy: Mr. Crommie 47 Loss of earnings and Benefits: $63,460 48 Emotional Distress: $25,000 Mr. Mangold 49 Loss of earnings and Benefits: $68,590 50 Emotional Distress: $30,000 51 However, since the Plaintiffs could not obtain double recovery, the court entered judgment in favor of Mr. Crommie for $88,460 ($63,460 loss of earnings plus $25,000 emotional distress under FEHA) and $63,460 liquidated damages under ADEA. Similarly, it awarded Mr. Mangold $98,590 ($68,590 loss of earnings plus $30,000 emotional distress under FEHA) and $65,462 liquidated damages under ADEA. Thus, the state tort award for violation of public policy was redundant. Likewise, there was no prejudice in allowing testimony on emotional distress because emotional distress is allowable for the statutory FEHA claim. See, e.g., Peralta Community College District v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, 52 Cal.3d 40, 276 Cal.Rptr. 114, 801 P.2d 357 (Cal.1990). Thus, we need not address whether the public policy tort should have been barred. 52