Zhang v. County of Monterey

Background

Jacqueline Zhang brought two procedural due process claims based on an alleged property interest in employment after her October 4, 2016 firing. One claim was under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The other was under Article I, § 7 of the California Constitution. The defendants were the County of Monterey, Monterey County Resource Management Agency, and Monterey County Parks Department, which the order collectively called “the County.”

The order addressed disputes about the remedies available if Zhang prevailed on the two due process claims. It did not address the remedies for Zhang’s petition for a writ of mandate because the court had already granted the defendants’ request for judicial adjudication of that petition. The order superseded an earlier order that had been vacated.

Difference Between the Two Claims

The court explained that the federal claim required Zhang to prove municipal liability under the doctrine from Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services. In this context, that meant she had to establish the County’s responsibility for the federal constitutional violation. The California claim did not include that additional requirement. Therefore, Zhang could prevail on the California claim without prevailing on the federal claim, but prevailing on the federal claim would necessarily establish the elements of the California claim as well.

Rulings on the Five Remedy Disputes

1. Reinstatement for due process. The court agreed with the County that neither due process claim automatically entitled Zhang to return to her former position. If Zhang prevailed at trial, she would instead be reinstated only to receive the disciplinary process that the County provides to permanent employees. She would return to her job only if that process found that her firing was unjustified.

2. Backpay. The court agreed with Zhang that, if she prevailed at trial, she would be entitled to past lost wages and benefits from the date of termination through the date of any decision by the County’s process. Under the California due process claim, she would receive backpay even if the County process upheld her termination. The court explained that the federal claim alone would provide only nominal damages if the County process found the firing justified, and compensatory damages, including backpay, if the process found it unjustified. But the California claim entitled Zhang to backpay regardless of that later outcome.

3. Retirement losses. The court ruled that Zhang’s backpay could include losses involving contributions to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, known as CalPERS. Those losses would be measured from the date of termination through the date of any decision by the County’s process.

4. Front pay. The court ruled that Zhang would not be entitled to “front pay,” meaning future lost wages and benefits, merely because she prevailed at trial. The court agreed that she would first need to prevail in the County’s process to be eligible for reinstatement or front pay. Front pay could be awarded instead of reinstatement only if reinstatement was inappropriate because of sufficiently serious hostility between Zhang and the County. The court stated that nothing in the record indicated that such hostility existed.

5. Prejudgment interest. The court ruled that Zhang would be entitled to prejudgment interest on the damages available under her California due process claim. It followed the approach cited by Zhang and set the period to begin on January 20, 2017, the date she served her complaint, and to end when judgment was entered on a verdict in her favor.

No Double Recovery

The court emphasized that the two claims concerned the same alleged injury: Zhang’s firing without due process. If Zhang prevailed on both claims and in the County’s process, she would not be entitled to recover twice for that injury. The court stated that she would receive only nominal damages on the federal claim in that circumstance, avoiding duplicate recovery of damages already awarded under the California claim.

Disposition

Judge Lucy H. Koh issued an amended order resolving the parties’ five disputes about available remedies. The order decided the legal consequences that could follow a future trial victory; it did not itself determine whether Zhang would prevail on either due process claim.