How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Patrick, Esq. Your Own Question
Patrick, Esq.
Patrick, Esq., Lawyer
Category: California Employment Law
Satisfied Customers: 12908
Experience:  Significant experience in all areas of employment law.
Type Your California Employment Law Question Here...
Patrick, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

My employer , which is the city and county of San Francisco

This answer was rated:

My employer , which is the city and county of San Francisco got sued by a group of employees for fraud and age discrimination that stemmed from a promotional exam given. The verdict was handed down just a week or so ago. They were awarded 3.7 million for age discrimination only. The judge ruled that the city was immune from fraud.
A second group of possible of employees are looking to file a suit as the first. Still as for myself I was not 40 years of age when the promotional exam was giving.
Still what are my chances just to sue for fraud and are government agency immune from getting sued for fraud, what is about my percentage of winning my case just on the fraud.
Hello and thank you for entrusting me to assist you. My name is XXXXX XXXXX I will do everything I can to answer your question.

When you say "fraud" can you explain what you mean? What was fraudulently concealed which caused you to sustain damage? Also, how long ago was it that you first became aware of this fraud?

I very much look forward to helping you on this matter.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

when the age lawsuit was filed back in 2009 ,I wasn't aware of the fraud till recent when the judgement was handed down. I was told of errors were found and that people that took the test and were promoted hadn't even passed the promotional exam, this was discovered when their test were requested by the planitffs laywer. the city even went so far to shred the answer key to the test.


Thanks for your reply. I'm sorry to hear about all this.

Unfortunatley, city, county, and state governments enjoy something called "sovereign immunity," which means they are legally immune from lawsuits unless a statute specifically provides for a "private cause of action." The Government Tort Claims Act (Govt. Code 815 et seq.) is the legislation which establishes the circumstances in which city, county and state agencies will "permit" themselves to be sued, and unfrotunately there is no provision within the Act permitting causes of action for fraud. I'd imagine this is why the court rejected the fraud cause of action in its recent ruling.

Moreover, the Government Tort Claims Act provides that claimants must take action within 6 months of when they learned or reasonably should have learned of the facts giving rise to their claim. Although I recognize that you only recently learned of the judgment, a defense attorney would argue that you were on notice of the possibility of fraud when that was initially alleged in the complaint against the city, since it was at that point you had the capacity to discover the allegation had been made. This is an ancillary point, though, since the Government Tort Claims Act does not permit causes of action for fraud and thus, soveregn immunity prevents you from taking legal action against the city on that basis.

Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding the above and I will be more than happy to assist you further.

If you do not require any further assistance, please be so kind as to provide a positive rating of my service so that I may receive credit for assisting you. Very best wishes and kindest regards.
Customer: replied 3 years ago.

thank you very much for your answer.

It would just be a waste of money for me to sue for fraud if the city is immune even thou I had filed within the six month period.


Thanks for your reply. You are unfortunately correct that it would likely be a waste of time, and money for that matter (civil complaints in CA Superior Court cost $435 just to file now!). Since you were under 40 at the time the city was allegedly engaging in this unlawful behavior, you'd have no legal "standing" to sue for age discrimination (meaning even if age discrimination did occur you, it did not directly impact you and thus you have no basis to collect damages for this legal wrong).

Again, please feel free to let me know if you have any further concerns. If I have answered your question, I would be very grateful for a positive rating of my service so that I may receive credit for assisting you.

Kindest regards.
Patrick, Esq. and other California Employment Law Specialists are ready to help you