Thursday, December 11, 2025
Page 3
Court of Appeal:
Sued Employer Can’t Discover Records Relating to Previous Job
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A county that is being sued for wrongful discharge—allegedly based on the plaintiff having contracted cancer—is not entitled to discovery of records relating to the man’s previous employment by another county, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held yesterday, partially granting a petition for a writ of mandate ordering that a subpoena duces tecum be quashed.
Seeking the writ is John Gee, who sued the County of Merced. It hired him as a supervising appraiser in February 2022 and fired him in December of that year.
The subpoena was served on his former employer, Stanislaus County for which he had worked for 16 years. After Merced terminated his employment, he sought a rehiring by Stanislaus but was turned down.
Merced Superior Court Judge Stephanie L. Jamieson denied the petition, ruling that all employment records are relevant to the county’s affirmative defense that Gee had failed to mitigate damages by seeking other employment.
Justice Mark W. Snauffer wrote for the Fifth District in declaring:
“We conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying Gee’s motion with respect to most, though not all, categories of the records. Documents concerning termination, adverse employment actions, performance reviews, and job applications submitted to Stanislaus County before leaving his employment there are irrelevant. But documents relating to any job application he submitted to Stanislaus County after his termination from County are relevant and discoverable unless protected from disclosure by the constitutional right to privacy.”
As to an asserted privacy interest, the justice said that “Gee does not explain how any alleged error was prejudicial, which is fatal to his claim.:
Elaborating, Snauffer said: “For its failure-to-mitigate defense. County must first prove substantially similar employment was available to Gee. If County cannot establish this element, the reasonableness of Gee’s efforts in seeking replacement employment is irrelevant. It is therefore pertinent whether the Stanislaus County job for which Gee applied was substantially similar to his former County job.”
He added:
“The remaining documents—those concerning Gee’s prior termination, any adverse action, performance evaluations, and job applications submitted before he left Stanislaus County—are not relevant to mitigation.
“The trial court accepted County’s view that these records would illuminate the range of jobs Gee was qualified to perform and therefore help evaluate his mitigation efforts. But Gee is not required to look for any and all jobs within his qualifications. Instead, a wrongfully terminated plaintiff is required only to seek employment ‘comparable, or substantially similar,’ to that wrongfully terminated.”
The case is Gee v. Superior Court, F090082.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company