The Wassman case is finally over

     Some of you might remember the issue, several years ago, concerning a tenured IVC Librarian, Carol Wassman, whose conduct became a problem for the college. Ultimately, she was fired. Her firing led to a lawsuit, which Wassman lost in 2016. She appealed. She lost that too. The opinion was filed two weeks ago (it became available for publication on the 21st).
     I know about the latter filing because, tonight, I somehow happened upon the recent opinion on a site called “Justia.” Not sure how that happened.
     You can find it here:

Justia Opinion

     Justia provides a summary:

The South Orange County Community College District (the District) dismissed Carol Wassmann from employment as a tenured librarian at Irvine Valley College (IVC) in April 2011. Several years later, Wassmann obtained a right to sue notice from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) and brought this lawsuit against the District, Karima Feldhus, Robert Brumucci [sic], Glenn Roquemore, Lewis Long, and Katherine Schmeidler. Wassmann, who is African-American, alleged causes of action for racial discrimination, age discrimination, and harassment in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), intentional infliction of emotional distress, and two other causes of action (not relevant here). The trial court granted two motions for summary judgment: one brought by the District Defendants and the other brought by Long and Schmeidler, on the ground the FEHA claims were barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action was barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the statute of limitations. Wassmann appealed, but finding no reversible error in the grant of summary judgment, the Court of Appeal affirmed.

     I looked over the opinion, filed 6-12-18. Here’s some info based on that reading:

     Back in 2010, Wassman’s dean (Feldus) tried to deal with what she judged to be Wassman’s unprofessional conduct. Here’s the beginning of the section of the opinion that discusses that alleged conduct:

     (The section describing the struggle to curb W’s [alleged] excesses is long and remarkable. I won’t go through all of that here. See the above link.)
     During this period, Wassman, as a member of the Faculty Association (union), was represented by two union officers: L Long and K Schmeidler.

     I was a friend of Carol’s, having gotten to know her on the Senate. At some point, I met with her and urged her to accommodate the dean to keep her job. I gently suggested that, if she lost her job and sued, she would not likely prevail. (I felt strongly that she didn't have a leg to stand on. Her conduct, what I knew of it, struck me as very unprofessional.)
     She was not disposed to take such advice. "You can't afford to lose this job," I told her. (I knew something about her circumstances.) But she was unmoved.
     Ultimately, Wassman was dismissed as a tenured librarian. That was on April 2011.

     Wassman filed her lawsuit Dec 2013.
     District defendants: [Dean] Feldus, [Vice Chancellor] Bramacci, [IVC President] Roquemore
     FA defendants (!): Long and Schmeidler.

     Ultimately, Wassman offered six causes of action. (1) age discrimination, (2) racial discrimination—disparate treatment, (3) harassment (hostile environment), (4) wrongful termination, (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (6) unfair business practices.
     1, 2, 4, and 6 were applied to district defendants (i.e., Feldus, Bramucci, Roquemore).
     3 and 5 were applied to all defendants (i.e., union officers Long and Schmeidler too).

     Next: unsurprisingly, district defendants (Feldus, et al.) filed a motion for summary judgment. Long and Schmeidler also filed such a motion. This is a request that the court summarily deal with the case instead of going through all the trouble of a long trial. (I—i.e., my lawyer—made the same move in my 1st Amendment suit against the district in 1998.)
     The trial court granted both motions.
     That was a victory for defendants, a major loss for Wassman.

     With regard to the district defendants: causes 1, 2, 3 were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and “res judicata,” which, according to my Mac’s dictionary, is “a matter that has been adjudicated by a competent court and may not be pursued further by the same parties.”
     Cause 5 failed because it was derivative of the above 3 causes, and because of the statute of limitations.
     For L and S:
     Cause 3 was barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
     Cause 5 failed because it was derived from the first three and because of the statute of limitations. Also, for technical reasons (incompetence of filing), Wassman had not actually managed to oppose L and S’s motion.

     Wassman appealed.
     At the end of the appeals process, the original judgment was affirmed.
     Well, again, if you're interested in the details, go here: Justia Opinion
     Situations like this cause administrators to adopt a slew of unfortunate CYA behaviors.
     Can't really blame 'em, I guess. Litigation is hell. People start saying amazing things at you. It's hard to process that. You kinda get used to it, I guess, but still....