 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Letona v. County of Santa Clara11/3/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Appellant Yazmina Letona seeks review of an order denying her petition for relief from the provisions of Government Code section 945.4, which requires the presentation of a tort claim to a public entity prior to filing suit for damages against the entity. Appellant seeks relief from the claims statute so that she may pursue her claim against respondents County of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County, Miguel Aguilar-Zapata, and Karen Kaho. We find no error and affirm.
I. Statement of Facts
Appellant has been employed by the County of Santa Clara (County) as a social worker since 1995. She alleges that " ommencing in or about early 1998 and continuing through late 1999," respondents Miguel Aguilar-Zapata and Karen Kaho, ombudsmen employed by the County, took various actions against her. Appellant alleges that Aguilar-Zapata and Kaho, among other things, wrongfully accused her of unprofessional or unethical conduct, made false claims of misconduct to her co-workers and supervisors, communicated improperly about her to others, misrepresented facts involving appellant to her co-workers and supervisors, demanded without justification that she be disciplined, demoted, and fired, initiated administrative proceedings against her, and accused her of giving false testimony to the superior court. During this same period, appellant reported this conduct to her supervisors and advised them that Aguilar-Zapata's and Kaho's conduct had "become so extreme that she could not continue her employment in such a hostile work environment" and respondents failed to take any action even after the superior court issued an order prohibiting Zapata from having contact with appellant's clients. Appellant thus alleges that the County maintained a hostile work environment and discriminated against her on the basis of sex and race. She also alleges that respondents defamed her, retaliated against her for exercising her legal rights, violated the terms of her employment agreement, and inflicted physical and emotional distress.
On March 31, 2000, appellant filed a government tort claim against the County. On April 10, 2000, the County issued a notice of insufficiency of the claim on the ground that the claim did not adequately describe the "date, place and other circumstances" of the alleged wrongful conduct. On April 24, 2000, appellant filed an amended claim in which she failed to specify further the dates when the wrongful conduct occurred. On May 9, 2000, the County returned the claim without action on the ground that it was untimely, and advised appellant that she could apply for leave to file a late claim.
On May 19, 2000, appellant filed an application for leave to file a late claim. Appellant did not include any additional facts regarding the timeliness of her claim. On June 19, 2000, the County denied the late claim application, and issued a notice of rejection of the claim on the merits to the extent that the claim alleged wrongdoing from and after September 30, 1999.
On July 19, 2000, appellant filed a petition for relief in the trial court. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the petition, stating: " he claim indicates that the misconduct was brought to the attention of Petitioner's superiors as early as April 1998, when the course of conduct allegedly began. It is apparent that Petitioner was
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|