Zhang v. County of Monterey

Background

Jacqueline Zhang sued the County of Monterey, Monterey County Resource Management Agency, and Monterey County Parks Department over the County's termination of her employment. The opinion states that two causes of action would be tried by a jury, while Zhang's remaining petition for a writ of mandate under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 would be decided by the court.

Federal Due-Process Claim

Zhang's fourth cause of action alleged that the defendants deprived her of property without due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. The court explained that she would need to show:

For the first element, the court said Zhang had to show that she was a permanent employee who could be dismissed only for cause. An employee who may be dismissed with or without cause generally does not have a protected property interest. The claimed entitlement to continued employment must come from state law or another independent source. The court said oral statements by supervisors, employment history, positive evaluations, and an implied-in-fact contract claim could not establish that property right. Zhang also had to show that she was deprived of the protected interest, such as through discharge.

For the procedural-protection element, the court said a permanent public employee must receive notice of the charges, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to respond before discharge. The employee must also receive a full hearing after termination. The pretermination hearing need not be elaborate.

Because the federal claim was brought under section 1983, Zhang also had to establish municipal liability. The court identified three possible bases: an employee acted under an expressly adopted policy or longstanding custom; the decision-maker had final authority to make policy; or a final policymaker delegated authority to, or ratified, a subordinate's decision.

California Due-Process Claim

Zhang's sixth cause of action alleged deprivation of property without due process under Article I, section 7 of the California Constitution. The court said she would need to show a protected property or liberty interest and denial of adequate procedures.

For an employment property interest, Zhang had to show that she was a permanent rather than probationary employee and that she was deprived of that interest, such as by discharge. The court explained that nonpermanent California public employees generally serve at the employer's will and do not have a property interest in continued employment.

Before removal, a discharged employee must receive notice of the proposed action and its reasons, the charges and supporting materials, and a meaningful opportunity to respond orally or in writing. After discipline is imposed, the employee is entitled to a full evidentiary hearing, although a full trial-type hearing is not required before the initial discipline.

Ruling and Effect

The court issued an order explaining the elements of the two due-process claims to be tried. It did not decide whether Zhang met those elements or resolve the claims on their merits. Judge Lucy H. Koh signed the order on June 6, 2021.