The Ninth Circuit didn't publish anything today, and the California appellate courts only published this opinion. So relatively slim pickings.
Still, I thought that today's (sole) opinion helped prove the point that you can sometimes figure out the way a case will come out merely by seeing the manner in which the opinion frames the facts.
For example, here, the first paragraph of the opinion seemed fairly pro-plaintiff, or at least not anti-her. It reads as follows:
"Sharon Curcio, formerly a teacher with the Fontana Unified School District (the district), learned her personnel file included derogatory statements about her. When the district refused to allow Curcio to obtain or review those statements, she sought assistance from her union, the Fontana Teachers Association (FTA), and from the California Teachers Association (CTA). Such assistance was not forthcoming, so Curcio initiated proceedings before the Public Employees Relations Board (the board), claiming FTA and CTA breached their duties of fair representation and engaged in unfair practices in violation of the Educational Employment Relations Act (the Act). (Gov. Code, § 3540 et seq.). When the board decided not to issue a complaint, Curcio filed this lawsuit."
Okay. That doesn't sound so bad. Maybe she's got a claim, maybe she doesn't. Seems neutral and disinterested. No way for me to tell which way I think the case will likely come out.
But then I get to the third paragraph of the opinion, which says this:
Curcio filed an unfair practice charge with the board, alleging FTA and its president breached a duty to represent her under the bargaining agreement between the district and FTA, when FTA and CTA declined to provide Curcio with an attorney to pursue her request for complaint letters in her personnel file. She requested the board order FTA to return the dues she had paid for the past 16 years ($22,000) because she had been forced to represent herself (with the assistance of colleagues) in her quest to obtain the complaint letters. In addition, Curcio prayed for $1.5 million in damages for FTA’s breach of contract. In her statement of the conduct that gave rise to her claim, Curcio also alleged CTA breached its duty to represent her. But, she did not name CTA as a party against whom the charge was directed."
Look, I understand that that's an equally "neutral" recitation. It just sets forth the facts.
Still. After reading that paragraph, I have a darn good sense of how this one's going to come out.
As indeed it does.
