Daily Blast October 16, 2017

Last week, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District (Fresno), in Va Ly, et al. v. County of Fresno, (Oct. 13, 2017, F072351) __ Cal.App.5th __, addressed whether a workers’ compensation decision, resolved in favor of the County of Fresno (the “County”), has preclusive effect on a separate simultaneous action pursued by plaintiffs under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). (Slip opn., p.7.) The Court of Appeal held that res judicata barred plaintiffs’ claims in the FEHA action. (Id. at p. 2.)

Plaintiffs alleged their former employer, the County, subjected them to racial discrimination, national origin discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Plaintiffs sued the County under FEHA, while simultaneously pursuing their workers’ compensation remedies with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (“WCAB”). In the workers’ compensation proceedings, the administrative law judges denied plaintiffs’ claims finding the County’s actions were non-discriminatory, good faith personnel decisions. (Slip opn., p. 2). The County then moved for summary judgment in the civil action based on res judicata and collateral estoppel doctrines, arguing the workers’ compensation decision barred plaintiffs’ FEHA claims. (Ibid.) The trial court granted summary judgment and the Court of Appeal affirmed based on res judicata. (Ibid.)

In determining whether res judicata applied, the Court of Appeal analyzed whether plaintiffs’ workers’ compensation and FEHA claims alleged violations of the same or different primary rights. (Slip opn., p.9.) The Court of Appeal reasoned that in the workers’ compensation action, plaintiffs sought to recover for psychiatric injuries caused by the County’s allegedly discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory actions. Likewise, in the FEHA action, plaintiffs sought to recover for the same injuries based on the same acts. (Ibid.) Thus, plaintiffs sought vindication of only one primary right in two alternative forums. (Id. at p. 10). Plaintiffs chose to proceed first with their workers’ compensation remedy even though the standard for recovery may be broader under FEHA. While workers’ compensation was not plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy, once they elected to pursue that remedy to a final judgment instead of pursuing their rights under FEHA, the WCAB became the exclusive forum to recover for their injuries. (Id. at p. 10.)