Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Page 3
Claim Against Governmental Entity Need Not Be Filed Before Suing Under FEHA—C.A.
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Eight of the Court of Appeal for this district has reversed an order dismissing three causes of action against the Los Angeles Community College District for alleged employment discrimination, saying that a judge erred in declaring that there was noncompliance with the statute that generally requires presentation of a claim against a governmental entity before suing it.
Under decisional law, the opinion says, the Government Claims Act (Government Code §810 et seq.) does not apply to causes of action brought under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”).
Justice John Shepard Wiley Jr. authored Friday’s pithy unpublished opinion—with its discussion comprising a mere 741 words—saying that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Barbara Ann Meiers erred in capsizing claims brought under the FEHA, while correctly disallowing two other causes of action.
Pro Per Prevails
The decision hands a victory to a pro per litigant, Jose Sevilla, who sued over being excluded from a work study program and other alleged affronts.
Meiers—whose long record of service on the bench, which goes back to her appointment to the erstwhile Los Angeles Municipal Court in 1981, includes frequent reversals—on Jan. 24, 2025, said in a minute order:
“All parties concurring that plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of the Government Tort Claims Act and plaintiff having failed to allege any such compliance, aside from all other grounds stated in the defendants’ Demurrer, the Demurrer must be and is sustained and the entire action is ordered dismissed.”
Wiley’s Opinion
Wiley wrote:
“In response to Sevilla’s appeal, the District conceded many cases hold the California Government Claims Act…does not apply to claims arising under the Fair Employment and Housing Act….
“The District cites no cases holding that the Government Claims Act does apply to claims arising under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. In other words, all the published authority that any party cites is that the trial court misapplied the law as to Sevilla’s first three claims.”
The justice cited the 1983 decision in Snipes v. City of Bakersfield in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal declared “that actions seeking redress for employment discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)… are not subject to the claim-presentation requirements of the Tort Claims Act.”
Wiley continued:
“The District protests. It writes the cited ‘appellate decisions are in direct contravention of Government Code § 905 which specifically identifies those categories of monetary claims which do not require a Government Claim. There is nothing in § 905 which exempts FEHA cases.’ This argument disregards the reasoning of Snipes, which cited section 905 repeatedly and held it did not control….The categories listed in section 905 of the Government Code are not exhaustive of the types of claims that are exempt.”
The case is Sevilla v. Los Angeles Community College District, B344386.
Janine K. Jeffrey of the Woodland Hills firm of Reily & Jeffery represented the school district.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company