Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David P. Yaffe, Judge, No. BS108798
Alan J. Sedley; John D. Weiss for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Rockard J. Delgadillo and Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorneys, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Gerald M. Sato, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent.
KLEIN, P. J.
Alicia Wolin, a 25-year veteran of the Los Angeles Police Department, appeals from an order denying a petition for writ of administrative mandate. In the writ petition, Wolin claimed entitlement to 10 years of back pay and benefits based on her assertion she improperly was denied promotion to lieutenant in January of 1997.
The trial court denied the petition because, at the time the City of Los Angeles (the City) adopted the provisions under which Wolin sought relief, it specifically stated “nothing in any of the above voluntarily imposed annual and interim [hiring] goals shall be interpreted as... requiring the City to grant a promotion... to any person....”
On appeal, Wolin contends she was entitled to promotion to the rank of lieutenant and the trial court erred in failing to address the merits of her claim. We conclude the trial court properly denied Wolin’s writ petition and affirm the order.
BACKGROUND
1. The consent decree approved in the federal district court.
In 1998, the Latin American Law Enforcement Association (LALEA) initiated a lawsuit in federal district court alleging employment discrimination against minority officers of the Los Angeles Police Department (the Department). Shortly thereafter, John W. Hunter, an African-American officer employed by the Department, commenced a similar action. After consolidation, the case was referred to as “ ‘Hunter-LALEA’ ” or “Hunter-La Ley.” (Nunez v. City of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 1998) 147 F.3d 867, 872, fn. 6.)
As the result of this litigation, the City entered into a consent decree in federal district court which established affirmative action goals for promotion to the rank of detective, sergeant and lieutenant for the plaintiff classes of Hispanic, African-American, and Asian-American police officers. The proposed consent decree was approved by the Los Angeles City Council (City Council) on November 5, 1991.
That same year, the City Council voted to extend the provisions of the consent decree to women, even though they were not a plaintiff class in the Hunter-LALEA action. In extending the consent decree to women, the City Council specifically stated “nothing in any of the above voluntarily imposed annual and interim [hiring] goals shall be interpreted as... requiring the City to grant a promotion... to any person....”
In 1992, the federal district court approved the proposed decree and appointed an administrative law judge to serve as the district court’s monitor. The district court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the consent decree.
2. Wolin’s application for promotion to lieutenant.
Wolin took the lieutenant’s examination and was placed on a two-year promotion list that expired on January 6, 1997. Application of the Hunter-LALEA consent decree in the last six months of Wolin’s promotion list led to identification of five individuals, including Wolin, who were recommended for promotion to lieutenant.
However, on advice from the Los Angeles City Attorney, the Department promoted a different group of five officers, rather than the group that included Wolin. After Wolin’s promotion list expired, the Department received a second opinion from the City Attorney indicating the Department should return to its past practice of using Hunter-LALEA guidelines during the last six months of a promotional list.
3. Wolin seeks writ review after her administrative appeal is denied.
Wolin unsuccessfully instituted administrative proceedings and thereafter filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus seeking to overturn the Department’s order sustaining the administrative decision.
The trial court denied the petition. It found the City Council’s extension of the provisions of the consent decree to women included a specific “proviso... that it would not entitle any individual to a promotion.” The City Council said nothing in any of the voluntarily imposed goals shall be interpreted as requiring the City to grant a promotion to any person.
CONTENTIONS
Wolin contends the trial court should have overturned the administrative decision as a manifest abuse of discretion. (Skelly v. State Personnel Bd. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194, 217-218.) She asserts the trial court’s failure to reach the merits of her claim effectively insulated the Department from implementing the Hunter-LALEA hiring and promotion goals with respect to women.
DISCUSSION
1. Wolin has no cause of action under the consent decree.
Wolin was not a member of any of the Hunter-LALEA litigation classes. She therefore had no enforceable right under the consent decree. Even if she did, enforcement of a right created in a consent decree would have required Wolin to institute proceedings in federal district court.
Further, the City’s voluntary extension of the consent decree to women did not create a right to promotion. (See Nunez v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 147 F.3d at pp. 872-873.) Because Wolin failed to demonstrate entitlement to promotion to lieutenant, the trial court properly denied her writ petition.
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed. The Department shall receive costs on appeal.
We concur: CROSKEY, J., KITCHING, J.