Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Fundamental public policy prohibits the retaliatory discharge of employees for whistleblowing in the public interest. (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 670-671, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373.) “This provision reflects the broad public policy interest in encouraging workplace whistle-blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.” (Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 77, 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 960 P.2d 1046; Colores v. Board of Trustees (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 1293, 1301, fn.1.)
Whistleblower retaliation protections exist under California Labor Code, § 1102.5; California Labor Code, § 6310; and California Government Code, § 8547.10.
It is unlawful for “[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, [to] retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties.” (Labor Code § 1102.5(b).)
It is also unlawful for “[a] employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, [to] retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.” (Labor Code § 1102.5(c).)
Courts have held the employee must be able to point to some legal foundation for his suspicion – some statute, rule or regulation which may have been violated by the conduct he or she disclosed. (Jadwin v. Cty. of Kern (E.D. Cal. 2009) 610 F.Supp.2d 1129, 1154; Love v. Motion Indus., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2004) 309 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1135.)
Statutory claims for retaliation must be specifically pled. (Fisher v. San Pedro Peninsula Hospital (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 590, 604.) As such, the plaintiff must set forth facts in his or her complaint that are “sufficiently detailed and specific to support an inference that each of the statutory elements of liability is satisfied.” (Mittenhuber v. City of Redondo Beach (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 1, 5.) Where a plaintiff attempts to prove retaliation by circumstantial evidence, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework applies. (Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th at 138.) Under this framework,
(Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1384; Akers v. County of San Diego (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1453, 116 Cal.Rptr.2d 602 (Akers); Morgan v. Regents of University of California (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 68–69, 105 Cal.Rptr.2d 652.)
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, “a plaintiff must show
(Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1384; Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 138.)
An employee engages in protected activity when he or she discloses reasonably based suspicions of illegal activity. (Mokler v. Cty. of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 138.) “Essential to a [retaliation claim’s] causal link is evidence that the employer was aware that the plaintiff had engaged in the protected activity.” (Morgan v. Regents of University of Cal. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 70.) An adverse action must occur “within a relatively short time” after an employer gains knowledge of an employee’s involvement in protected activity. (Morgan v. Regents of University of Cal. (2000) 88 Cal.App.4th 52, 69.)
“[A]n employee must be protected against discharge for a good faith complaint about working conditions which he believes to be unsafe.” (Cabesuela v. Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 101, 109.)
“Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer because the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, his or her employer, or his or her representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in his or her employment or place of employment, or has participated in an employer-employee occupational health and safety committee, shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer.” (Labor Code § 6310(b).)
“[A]ny person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a university employee, including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for having made a protected disclosure shall be liable in an action for damages brought against him or her by the injured party.” (Gov. Code § 8547.10(c); Terris v. City of Santa Barbara (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 551, 555-558.)
“Protected disclosure means a good faith communication, including a communication based on, or when carrying out, job duties, that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose information that may evidence
An “[i]mproper governmental activity” is an activity by a state agency or state employee either within the scope of his or her employment or directly related to state government that is
In the instant case, it has been more than 18 months since plaintiffs submitted their whistleblower complaints to Regents alleging that they were retaliated against by their superiors after voicing concerns about illegal conduct within UCSB-PD. M. Little submitted his whistleblower complaint on September 3, 2018. (M. Little Dec., ¶6.) T. Little submitted her whistleblower complaint on September 1, 2018. (T. Little Dec., ¶5.) Both whistleblower complaints were submitted more than 27 months ago.
MICHAEL LITTLE ET AL VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
19CV01431
Jan 15, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Plaintiff does not allege he complained about whistleblower retaliation. The administrative remedies in question specifically concern whistleblower retaliation: the University of Californias whistleblower protection policy (RJN, Ex. B) and UCLAs procedure 620.1 about whistleblower retaliation complaints (RJN, Ex. C).
ARTHUR LITTLE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV36102
Jun 01, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
He does not dispute the existence or contents of the University of Californias whistleblower protection policy (RJN, Ex. B) or UCLA procedure 620.1: whistleblower retaliation complaints (RJN, Ex. C). Plaintiff also relies on findings by former California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Morenos investigation into UCLAs nondiscrimination policy. (Opp., pp. 6-7; FAC, ¶¶ 30-31.)
ARTHUR LITTLE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV36102
Mar 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
In the instant case, it has been more than 18 months since Signa submitted his whistleblower complaint to Regents alleging that he was retaliated against by his superiors after voicing concerns about illegal conduct within UCSB-PD. Signa submitted his whistleblower complaint to the Human Resources Department of UCSB-PD on May 31, 2018, approximately 30 months ago. (Signa Dec., ¶6.)
MARK SIGNA ET AL VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
18CV05728
Jan 15, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
Regents argue that the Covid-19 pandemic has severely impacted their ability to address plaintiff’s whistleblower complaints. Since March 2020, the governor has issued a number of stay-at-home orders and other safety orders in an attempt to prevent the spread of the virus. Regents’ investigation has been further delayed due to the complexity of the issues involved and the fact that four other UCSB-PD officers have filed whistleblower retaliation complaints against Regents.
JONATHAN LEE REYES VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL
19CV02586
Jan 25, 2021
Santa Barbara County, CA
On July 18, 2012, more than six years ago, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint alleging a cause of action for whistleblower retaliation per Lab. Code § 1102.5. Defendant seeks to bifurcate the trial in this action to first conduct a phase in which it will be determined whether Plaintiff is a whistleblower prior to a second phase in which the remaining elements of whistleblower retaliation will be addressed.
WILLIAM R CORDERO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BC488483
Jul 30, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Case Number: 19STCV45102 Hearing Date: June 22, 2023 Dept: 57 The Court's tentative decision is to deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, with respect to Plaintiff's claims for retaliation under the whistleblower protections afforded by Labor Code Sections 1102.5(b) and 1102.5(c). Applying the analytical framework for whistleblower protection claims set forth in Lawson v.
ALI REZA JAZIREHI VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV45102
Jun 22, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (2) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Government Code § 8547.10 et seq.; and (3) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Health and Safety Code § 1278.5. On October 30, 2018, the Court sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the FAC as to the first and second causes of action with leave to amend and overruled the demurrer as to the third.
SHOHREH SAMIMI VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CA ET AL
BC696641
Mar 04, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
BIAS OR MOTIVE Monterrosa argues that the witnesses and the OUSD pursued the charges to retaliate for his whistleblower activity. The possible bias or motive of the OUSD witnesses (Monterrosa’ s assertion of whistleblower retaliation) does not render the process a denial of due process.
MONTERROSA VS OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RG19047997
Jan 05, 2022
Alameda County, CA
Regents wants whistleblower information. The only evidence that Crockett ever made another whistleblower claim is with respect to City of Arroyo Grande. Regents wants information about whistleblower reports which may reflect upon the motivation and circumstances of the whistleblower report that is the subject of this litigation.
DAVID CROCKET VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ETC ET AL
1440438
Dec 05, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
The Court also found that Plaintiffs claim for whistleblower retaliation under the California Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA) failed because Plaintiff was not an employee of a state agency within the meaning of the statute. The Court entered judgment in favor of Defendant on February 14, 2023. Plaintiff argues that the Courts Order was in error, but fails to show any new or different facts, circumstances, or law warranting reconsideration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008, subd. (a).)
BARBARA SCOTT,, AN INDIVIDUAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
20STCV22590
Apr 03, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Instead Plaintiff alleges he was harassed, discriminated and retaliated against because he was married to a whistleblower, and for being a whistleblower himself regarding Defendant’s Ali’s alleged actions toward his wife. To show a prima facie case of marital status discrimination under FEHA, an employee must allege that termination resulted from his married status, not because of a particular person to whom he was married. (Nakai v.
ERIC ROBINSON VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC714394
Nov 09, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
In fact, the Legislature contemplated that hospital peer review proceedings against a physician might coexist simultaneously with a physician's section 1278.5 whistleblower action. Id. at 679-680. Thus, a physician is not required to bring a mandamus petition to overturn the administrative decision before filing a whistleblower action under section 1278.5. Id. at 687. For the same reason, plaintiff's whistleblower claim was not equitably tolled until the conclusion of the administrative proceedings.
MEHDI FAKHRAI MD VS DAVID ROSENBERG
37-2017-00018411-CU-PN-CTL
Apr 05, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Defendants have sufficient time to conduct additional discovery concerning the newly stated violations of the state and federal laws upon which plaintiff bases his whistleblower retaliation cause of action. The motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to file the proposed Second Amended Complaint attached to his counsels declaration as Exhibit D within two (2) court days of this ruling.
JEFFREY QIUHONG YANG VS GLOBAL WIN CAPITAL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV45192
Jan 13, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff believes she was terminated due to whistleblower retaliation. (FAC ¶¶ 13-14.) However, the FAC does not specifically name Plaintiff’s supervisor as a defendant. In addition, the FAC does not allege that Defendants (public entities) had knowledge of, authorized, or ratified the alleged wrongful conduct of Plaintiff’s manager’s (Jeremy Starkey) to whom Plaintiff made the protected disclosure (FAC ¶¶ 40, 42.)
RAYMUNDO VS SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO
CVRI2103679
Dec 01, 2021
Riverside County, CA
App. 4th 1163, 1179, the court refused to apply discretionary act immunity to a whistleblower retaliation claim asserted by a teacher who was denied tenure.
PIERRE DEMIAN VS MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A LOCAL PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ET AL.
21STCV46429
Jul 27, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 17, 2022, Defendant filed this demurrer as to Plaintiffs causes of action for discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of FEHA, whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and wrongful termination in violation of FEHA. Defendant also filed a motion to strike Plaintiffs fifth cause of action for whistleblower retaliation.
SAMUEL TAPIA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY
22STCV14854
Apr 21, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Ruffin’s 1st 5th 6th and 7th COAs allege disability discrimination, and the 8th COA alleges a whistleblower claim – all of which involve distinct and often complicated issues.
GODREY RUFFIN VS U S TELEPACIFIC CORP ET AL
BC621220
Aug 14, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff has filed a complaint for whistleblower retaliation in violation of Government Code section 8547, et seq. Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the complaint does not allege compliance with the Tort Claims Act filing requirements. (Govt. Code §§ 905.2, 911.2.)
SUSAN LEW VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
34-2010-00083294-CU-PO-GDS
Sep 19, 2012
Sacramento County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The court has considered the evidentiary basis of the Third cause of action for Whistleblower Retaliation with that of the First cause of action under FEHA for complaining of Racial Discrimination and Harassment and the Second cause of action under FEHA for Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation based on Race.
SHENETTA D TONEY VS. LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
STK-CV-UOE-2015-0005208
Feb 20, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
The third cause of action against the District alleges whistleblower retaliation under the Labor Code due to Plaintiffs assertion of his legal rights against discrimination and harassment. (Petition ¶¶ 43-44.) The fourth cause of action against all Defendants alleges whistleblower retaliation under the Education Code due to Plaintiffs disclosure of improper governmental activity. (Petition ¶¶ 58-59.)
JORGE MATA VS FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.
19STCP01694
May 23, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff shall have leave to amend to attempt to state a whistleblower retaliation claim. Plaintiff's complaint to OFD that he was denied the AAFM position for reasons that violate the MOU and OFD "protocol, guidelines and standards" does not support a claim for whistleblower retaliation under section 1102.5. (Edgerly v. City of Oakland (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1191.) The current allegations are insufficient to support an inference that White had discriminatory ore retaliatory animus based race or age.
HOLT VS CITY OF OAKLAND
RG19042198
May 04, 2021
Alameda County, CA
In Miklosy, supra, the California Supreme Court affirmed the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend to a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress pled by an allegedly terminated whistleblower. The Court held that the terminated employee's exclusive remedy was in the workers' compensation forum. Second Cause of Action (Breach of Contract): Sustained with leave to plead a cause of action for whistleblower retaliation.
STEPHEN MACKINNON VS. THE CITY OF SANTA PAULA
56-2013-00433766-CU-WT-VTA
Nov 06, 2013
Ventura County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
There is no allegation that the person to whom the DFEH complaint was served was also the person to whom the Whistleblower Act complaint was permissibly served. This is especially important because, assuming without deciding that the contents of the DFEH complaint satisfies the content requirement of a Whistleblower Act complaint, the recipient would need to have some basis for knowing that the Whistleblower Act process is being invoked.
DAWN HOLMES, PHD V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
17VB00106
May 16, 2017
Santa Barbara County, CA
To clarify, Plaintiff alleged a whistleblower claim under Labor Code § 1102.5 based on two of her complaints to Defendants: (1) that she was not provided with legally compliant off-duty meal and rest breaks, and (2) that Defendants requested Plaintiff to administer good faith examinations despite lacking the qualifications required by law to do so. Plaintiff’s whistleblower claim does not involve any other sort of wage and hour violations.
DEIDRE GAVIN VS ORANGE TWIST, LLC, ET AL.
20STCV04602
Jul 27, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
REGENTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS First Cause of Action: Whistleblower Retaliation The motion is sustained with leave to amend as to the cause of action for whistleblower retaliation because Plaintiff has failed to allege that she exhausted the necessary administrative remedies or that exhaustion was excused. Seventh, Eighth and Ninth Causes of Action The motion is sustained as to these causes of action with leave to amend for two reasons.
TRANG LE VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
23STCV18463
Mar 21, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Whistleblower Retaliation (L.C. § 1102.5 [a]) 2. Whistleblower Retaliation (L.C. § 1102.5 [b]) 3. Whistleblower Retaliation (L.C. § 98.6 [a]) 4. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA 5. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy 6. Failure to Pay for All Hours Worked (L.C. §§ 223, 510 & 1194) 7. Failure to Pay Overtime Wages (LC. §§ 204, 510, 1194, and Wage Order 4-2001 8. Failure to Pay Minimum Wages (L.C. §§ 1194, 1197, and Wage Order 4-2001) 9.
AMINAH MIMS VS LADERA HEIGHTS PREP PRESCHOOL ET AL
BC611482
May 05, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Also, the assertion in the reply that “[f]or the first time in the history of this case, Plaintiff now alleges that he was a ‘Whistleblower,’...” is without merit. (See Reply p.2:20-21). Plaintiff’s complaint contains a 9th cause of action for “Violation of Labor Code §1102.5 (Whistleblower Statute).” (See Compl. p.16:24-25). Based on the foregoing, the motion is denied without prejudice.
EDGAR PRADO VS CASTA CONSTRUCTION INC.
19CHCV00325
Aug 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
To the contrary, the Legislature codified the same-decision defense to whistleblower retaliation. (Lab. Code, § 1102.6 [the employer shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by Section 1102.5]; Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.
DAVID MATHEWS VS GENE SIMMONS, ET AL.
23STCV03952
Nov 13, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The original unverified Complaint for Damages was filed on January 14, 2020, and alleges four causes of action for (1) Whistleblower Retaliation (California Labor Code §1102.5) , (2) Whistleblower Retaliation (California Labor Code § 232.5), (3) Whistleblower Retaliation (California Labor Code §98.6), and (4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy.
OCTAVIO VALDEZ VS THE HERRICK CORPORATION
STK-CV-UOE-2020-0000625
Mar 26, 2024
San Joaquin County, CA
Wilker has been sued by State Farm in a separate whistleblower action, entitled People ex rel. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Brentwood Orthopedic & Spine Surgery, LLC, et al., Case No. BC633108, regarding his claims submitted to State Farm for medical services provided to patients suffering from collision-related injuries. Dr.
ARCADIA MONTES ET AL VS DAVID LAWSON
BC613625
Jun 30, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
There does not need to be an exhaustion of remedies for a whistleblower claim. Chin, Wiseman, California Practice Guide: Employment Litigation, section 5:1763 (TRG March 2022 update). Even if these allegations are incorporated into the Eighth Cause of Action, there are other allegations of discretion, specifically age and gender in paragraph 117.
BARBIE BARRETT, MD.,MS, VS. SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS, DBA MILLS-PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL
21-CIV-04228
Aug 07, 2022
San Mateo County, CA
Code 12940(h) and (i).), Hostile Work Environment, Nonpayment of Wages, Violation of Whistleblower Statute, Age Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodation, Failure to Provide Meaningful Interactive Process, Fraud, and IIED. In opposition, Defendant contends that the new claims are based on theories previously rejected by the court and previously known to Plaintiff.
ERLINDA O. AQUINO VS JANET GARCIA
KC067384
Jul 18, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Background On May 27, 2016, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint asserting three counts of whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5, alleging plaintiff was wrongfully terminated for complaining about her joint employer’s illegally altering a patient’s medical record. On July 8, 2016, defendants ADP Totalsource, Inc. and ADP Totalsource Co. XXI, Inc. filed the instant motion to strike the prayer for attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff opposes.
GABRIELA AGUAYO VS ARCHIBALD SURGERY CENTER LLC ET AL
BC613590
Sep 22, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Because P did not file a government claim until four years after Bryan’s conduct was revealed and P realized that he was right to have acted as a whistleblower the action is barred.
LUIS PEREZ V. DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
PSC 1701253
Jun 23, 2017
Riverside County, CA
Vorce") in retaliation for whistleblower activities. Ms. Buford was employed as a Human Resources ("HR") Manager by Defendants. During her tenure as HR Manager, Buford allege she engaged in whistleblower activity concerning various violations of HR policies, including requirements for background checks and discrimination, as well as violations of drug and alcohol testing policies. Mr. Vorce was employed as the Director of Safety and Risk Management by Defendants. During his tenure, Mr.
SINDY BUFORD VS. MATHESON TRUCKING INC
34-2018-00226011-CU-WT-GDS
Feb 04, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Court will thus grant summary adjudication as to the whistleblower retaliation claim and the defamation claim.
SYLVIA VERONICA SCOTT VS BURBANK UNITIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
19STCV08953
May 21, 2021
12/14/2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
The Demurrer by Defendants Los Banos Unified School District and Tammie Calzadillas to the eleventh, cause of action for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5 and 1102.6 contained in Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint for failure to comply with the Government Claims Act is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Whistleblower claims are subject to the Government Claims Act. (Le Mere v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 237, 246-247.)
STEPHEN COX VS LOS BANOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.
22CV-03839
Jun 21, 2023
Merced County, CA
On December 14, 2018, Defendant Ace Industrial Supply, Inc. filed a complaint against Toolmasters Industrial Supply, Inc. (18STCV08405), whereby Defendant disclosed the identity of Plaintiff as a whistleblower. Plaintiff alleges that the disclosure of his name as a whistleblower prevents him from finding employment within “the same industry.”
JAMES UNDERWOOD VS TIMOTHY STEARNS, ET AL.
19CHCV00952
Oct 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
However, the judicially noticed documents demonstrate the effective dates of the Whistleblower Policy was 1-1-12; and the Complaint alleges Plaintiff’s termination was largely orchestrated by Sheryl Sistrunk, MD, who arrived at UCI to become her manager in December 2015. (Complaint, ¶ 31.) Defendant to give notice.
KARIMI VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CA TRANS
30-2017-00916063-CU-WT-CJC
Jul 11, 2019
Orange County, CA
Plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation cause of action is based on the same underlying allegations as his violation of Labor Code §6310 cause of action.
MONTGOMERY BRIDGES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
20STCV39714
May 27, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Labor Code section 1102.5 provides whistleblower protections to employees. Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (h), further provides that employers shall not retaliate against an employee where the employee’s family member has engaged in any acts protected by Labor Code section 1102.5. While defendants argue that Sara’s claim fails here because she did not engage in whistleblower activity herself, they have provided no legal authority to challenge the family member provision in subdivision (h).
ASHLEY SCHEESLEY VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
22CECG01387
Feb 06, 2024
Fresno County, CA
The First Amended Complaint filed on September 10, 2018 asserted causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) harassment in violation of FEHA; (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA; (4) failure to prevent harassment and discrimination in violation of FEHA; and (5) violation of the California Whistleblower statutes (Lab. Code §§ 1102.5, et seq.).
ERIC ROBINSON VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC714394
Jul 08, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Whistleblower Claim The Regents argues that Plaintiffs sixth cause of action for whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 fails for failure to exhaust internal grievance proc edures . The Court agrees. The rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies to claims under Labor Code § 1102.5. ( Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4 th 311, 321.)
ELSIE COLEMAN VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
23SMCV00073
Feb 21, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff argues that additionally, Bozajian is expected to testify about his communications with Plaintiff regarding the City Manager selection, the whistleblower reports that he received from Plaintiff, and Shapiro’s responses to those whistleblower reports. (Rubin Decl. ¶ 7-8.)
JEFFREY RUBIN VS CITY OF CALABASAS, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
20STCV19874
Jan 21, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The CDCR "acknowledges that plaintiff is not precluded from proceeding with a cause of action under the WPA predicated on allegations that he was terminated from employment with the CDCR in late 2017 in retaliation for having purportedly engaged in whistleblower activing in May of 2016 when he filed Limon I, and thereafter when he provided an interview to the media about his claims."
LIMON VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
37-2018-00029993-CU-OE-CTL
Oct 18, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
PSJHC does not demur to the third cause of action for statutory whistleblower retaliation because it is settled that whistleblower claims under Cal. H&S Code §1278.5 are not subject to the exhaustion requirement. E.g. Fahlen v. Sutter Cent. Valley Hosps. (2014) 58 Cal.4th 655, 659-660. The SAC alleges the peer review process is inadequate because it does not permit full participation of counsel at the hearing[.] SAC ¶71.
CONNIE CHEIN, M.D. VS PROVIDENCE SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, ET AL.
21SMCV01884
Nov 16, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint (“SAC”) alleging a single cause of action for violation of California Whistleblower Statute Cal. Labor Code §1102.5. ANALYSIS A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)
ERIC ROBINSON VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL
BC714394
Feb 01, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
This statute and the California Supreme Court logically suggest that the mere filing of the whistleblower complaint is insufficient to exhaust administrative remedies; the whistleblower must also pursue those administrative remedies by following the University’s whistleblower complaint procedures.
FRANCIS FOGANG LAGUFU VS REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
BC719722
Dec 06, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Plaintiff believes whether or not patients were being properly released into the community is the heart of her whistleblower claim, such that the medical information is directly relevant to her case. Defense counsel provides a responsive declaration in which she contests Plaintiff’s assertion that counsel has sought confidential patient medical information in other witness depositions.
Re: Amy Consolati v. Atascadero State Hospital
Jan 24, 2017
San Luis Obispo County, CA
.: SC129061 MOTION: Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint HEARING DATE: 12/2/2020 Background Plaintiff’s first amended compliant (FAC) contains causes of action for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5, whistleblower protection under Government Code section 12653 (California False Claims Act), wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant filed a motion to strike.
CHRISTINA DEMAURO VS PROSPECT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.
SC129061
Dec 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The Court finds that Morales FAC successfully pleads the required elements of a whistleblower retaliation cause of action under Labor Code § 1102.5. The Demurrer to the Tenth Cause of Action if OVERRULED. 4.
HERMAN MORALES VS QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, ET AL.
22STCV04401
Aug 22, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court finds that Morales FAC successfully pleads the required elements of a whistleblower retaliation cause of action under Labor Code § 1102.5. The Demurrer to the Tenth Cause of Action if OVERRULED. 4.
HERMAN MORALES VS QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, ET AL.
22STCV04401
Aug 11, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Pursuant to CCP Sections 598 and 1048(b), Defendant asks the Court to “grant PADI’s motion to bifurcate trial of Plaintiff’s damages on his whistleblower claim,” so that the first phase of trial would address liability on all of Plaintiff’s remaining claims, and the second phase of trial would address only damages on Plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation claim (the seventh cause of action). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is DENIED.
WUCHERPFENNIG V. PADI AMERICAS INCORPORATED
30-2019-01080435
Dec 21, 2020
Orange County, CA
The Demurrer to the whistleblower claim is well taken, but Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts that could address a potentially dispositive issue raised in the moving and reply papers, i.e., that he gave the District timely written notice of a Government Code claim. The Courts tentative is thus to sustain with leave to amend as to the whistleblower (fifth) cause of action.
ELTON LYNUM VS INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
22TRCV00237
Nov 29, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
In the concurrent ruling, the Court has granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to allege a cause of action for Whistleblower Retaliation under 8 U.S.C. § 1514A. Defendant intends to seek removal of this case to federal court under federal subject matter jurisdiction. (28 U.S.C. §1331.) Accordingly, the hearings on the parties’ cross-motions are continued to preserve judicial economy.
JOHN DOE VS BRIXINVEST, LLC
19STCV33375
Aug 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
This does not create a triable issue of material fact as to whether a material adverse employment action or a substantial adverse change in the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment occurred, an essential element of the Discrimination, Retaliation, Whistleblower or Public Policy Causes of Action.
JESSICA SCHINDLER VS DIGNITY HEALTH
21CV-02878
Feb 18, 2022
Merced County, CA
On August 19, 2020, Plaintiff Victoria Larson filed the operative Complaint against Defendant Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC for (1) FEHA harassment, (2) FEHA discrimination, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, (5) adverse action in violation of public policy, and (6) whistleblower retaliation. Defendant Pegasus Elite Aviation, LLC demurs to all causes of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.
VICTORIA LARSON VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, LLC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
20STCV31537
May 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants argue that the alleged threat cannot support Plaintiff’s whistleblower claims which are made under California Labor Code §§ 1102.5, 6310 and 98.6.
HOYUELA VS SMILE BRANDS INC.
30-2018-01005391-CU-WT-CXC
Oct 19, 2018
Orange County, CA
PROCEDURAL HISTORY Schwade filed the Complaint on March 29, 2019, alleging seven causes of action: Violation of FEHA (discrimination, harassment, retaliation, failure to make reasonable accommodation, failure to engage in interactive process, failure to take steps necessary to prevent discrimination and harassment) Violation of CFRA Whistleblower retaliation Whistleblower retaliation Wrongful termination in violation of public policy Negligent hiring, supervision and/or retention Intentional infliction
PATRICIA SCHWADE, ET AL. VS SOUTH PASADENA CARE CENTER, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV11010
Dec 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
On December 6, 2023, Plaintiff Durant McLeod filed the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC) against Defendants California Physicians Service, Arshad Haqib, and Sandra Griffin for (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA harassment, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (5) whistleblower retaliation, (6) wrongful termination, and (7) whistleblower retaliation.
DURANT MCLEOD VS CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS SERVICE, ET AL.
23STCV14848
Mar 20, 2024
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 5, 2023, Plaintiff Durant McLeod filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against Defendants California Physicians Service, Arshad Haqib, and Sandra Griffin for (1) FEHA discrimination, (2) FEHA harassment, (3) FEHA retaliation, (4) FEHA failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and harassment, (5) whistleblower retaliation, (6) wrongful termination, and (7) whistleblower retaliation.
DURANT MCLEOD VS CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS SERVICE, ET AL.
23STCV14848
Dec 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
This is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to whistleblower retaliation. Defendants motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Defendants motion for summary adjudication of the causes of action for whistleblower retaliation is DENIED. B.
MARIO CARDONA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
22STCV17208
Sep 06, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Second Cause of Action Whistleblower Retaliation (Labor Code, § 1102.5, subd (b).) Likewise, Deloitte Defendants argue the court should sustain their demurrer for this cause of action because they were never Plaintiffs employer.
OMAR NOORZAI VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
23STCV04913
Nov 17, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
On November 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Regents of the University of California, Michael Blum (director of CDHI), Rachel Callcut (Plaintiff’s supervisor at UCSF), and Robert Rogers (manager of data science team) for whistleblower retaliation under section 8547.10 of the Government Code. (Id. ¶¶ 131–48; see also Am. to Compl., Mar. 21, 2022 (substituting Rogers as Doe 1).)
MIELKE VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RG20081227
Mar 07, 2024
Alameda County, CA
Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (9) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 6310; (10) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 6311; (11) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 232.5; (12) Violation of Labor Code § 1197.5; (13) Interference with CFRA Leave; (14) Wrongful Termination of Employment in Violation of Public Policy; (15) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (16) Negligent Infliction
JOANNA ELLIOTT VS PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, ET AL.
21STCV05234
Sep 08, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
A report made by an employee of a government agency to his employer is a “disclosure” of information to a government or law enforcement agency pursuant to the Labor Code whistleblower retaliation statute. (Hager v. County of Los Angeles (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1548.) On February 5, 2013, Plaintiff was ordered to testify before Judge Fidler in the People v.
KEVIN OKAMOTO VS CITY OF PASADENA
BC602657
Oct 29, 2018
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 1200, et seq. for Unfair Business Practices; Whistleblower Violations, Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5; and Wrongful Termination and Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy. In June 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint (Ficitious/Incorrect Name) naming ERIKS North America, Inc. (“ERIKS”) as Doe 1.
JAKE HAMMOND VS ADVANCED SEALING, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV34894
Dec 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Cause of Action at Issue The fifth cause of action is for whistleblower retaliation pursuant to Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivisions (b) and (f). (Complaint, ¶¶ 6470.)
BENJAMIN RESENDEZ VS GUY F. ATKINSON CONSTRUCTION, LLC., A MARYLAND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22STCV33698
May 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff moves to file a 2nd amended complaint to add two whistleblower causes of action. Plaintiff argues that the amendment will not prejudice defendant, because the new causes of action arise from the same facts, discovery is continuing, and the causes of action are brought within the relevant statue of limitations period. There is no proof of service of notice of the hearing and the moving papers on the interested parties in the court’s file.
PEOPLES V. EL DORADO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION
PC-20160548
Apr 19, 2018
El Dorado County, CA
Plaintiff’s whistleblower termination revolves around complaints and circumstances that occurred from 2014 to 2016. Whether Defendants are still engaged in the same alleged illegal behavior now bears no relevance as to the events from when Plaintiff was actually terminated. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate how evidencing Defendants are still engaged in these practices would aid Plaintiff’s employment claims.
LENORA YOU VS RITE AID ET AL
BC664662
Mar 19, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
Case Number: 21STCV34562 Hearing Date: April 14, 2023 Dept: 76 Plaintiff, a test driver of autonomous vehicles, alleges wage and hour violations, and brings a PAGA claim, as well as a claim for whistleblower retaliation/wrongful termination.
JOSEPH LEE VS BERTRANDT U.S., INC., ET AL.
21STCV34562
Apr 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Whistleblower Retaliation In Violation Of California Labor Code § 1102.5; 2. Whistleblower Retaliation In Violation Of California Labor Code § 98.6; 3. Whistleblower Retaliation In Violation Of California Labor Code § 6310; 4. Constructive Discharge; 5. Intentional Infliction Of Emotional Distress; 6. Failure To Pay Minimum Wages; 7. Failure To Compensate For All Hours Worked 8. Failure To Provide Meal Periods; 9.
JUAN ALVARADO VS FRESHPOINT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
22PSCV00655
Sep 28, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
ISO Motion to Amend, ¶ 2, Exh. 1 (“PAC”), ¶ 5.)1 The PAC also asserts two forms of injuries: 1) DFEH discrimination, harassment, and retaliation and 2) retaliation for whistleblower activities. (PAC, ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs assert they have each received right to sue letters from DFEH for those claims. (PAC, ¶ 9.) For the whistleblower claims, plaintiffs assert that it is unclear to whom such claims should be addressed. (PAC, ¶¶ 18-22.)
ASHLEY SCHEESLEY VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
22CECG01387
Oct 26, 2023
Fresno County, CA
This is a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit. In a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit brought under Labor Code section former 1102.5, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 1102.5(b)), the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The plaintiff must show he engaged in protected activity, his employer subjected him to an adverse employment action, and there is a causal link between the two.
KARO VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
37-2016-00044141-CU-OE-CTL
May 31, 2018
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
The first cause of action asserts a claim against both the City and McKay for retaliation in violation of the whistleblower protections afforded by California Labor Section 1102.5(b). The other cause of action asserts a claim against the City alone for discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity in violation of Californias Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
VICTOR REGLA VS CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK, ET AL.
23STCV06618
Oct 16, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
This is a wrongful termination action based on allegations that the plaintiff was terminated because he was a “whistleblower.” The subpoenas seek the employment records of the plaintiff’s former employers. Although styled as a motion for a protective order, this motion appears to be one seeking to quash or modify the deposition subpoena under Code of Civil Procedure section 1985.6. The records of prior employers are discoverable in these types of actions.
MACY V. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC.
30-2021-01182859
Aug 19, 2021
Orange County, CA
Case Number: 21STCV34562 Hearing Date: June 2, 2023 Dept: 76 Plaintiff, a test driver of autonomous vehicles, alleges wage and hour violations, and brings a PAGA claim, as well as a claim for whistleblower retaliation/wrongful termination.
JOSEPH LEE VS BERTRANDT U.S., INC., ET AL.
21STCV34562
Jun 02, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
IAC/Interactivecorp et al., Case No. 20SMCV01090 Hearing Date December 10, 2020 Defendants’ Motion to Compel Arbitration Plaintiff Williams, former finance manager of defendant Match Group, alleges wrongful termination after complaining about unlawful activity; he sues for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, unfair competition and violation of whistleblower protection law.
ANDREW WILLIAMS VS IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, ET AL.
20SMCV01090
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
The court is also mindful this is a whistleblower case and as such is a matter of public concern. While the court finds minimal procedural and substantive unconscionability, this unconscionability does not render the agreement to arbitrate unenforceable.
SCARLETT OSTERLING VS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
20STCV05256
Aug 24, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
However, the whistleblower claim, the only claim implicated in this motion, accrued after August 9, 2021 because Plaintiff was not demoted until August 15, 2021. Defendant acknowledges that it rejected the claims accruing after August 9, 2021. Therefore, Plaintiff has met the prerequisite under Section 945.4 for bringing the whistleblower claim. b.
ANGELA WALTON VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.
22STCV18166
Dec 08, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
As matter of law, the California whistleblower protection does not protect her disclosure. In Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Community College Dist. (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 832, the lower court entered judgment in favor of defendants against the plaintiff on her whistleblower claim under Labor Code § 1102.5. Id. at 839. (4) Reporting Publicly Known Facts Is Not a Protected Disclosure. We are persuaded that this was a proper limitation on what constitutes disclosure protected by California law.
LILLIAN L CARANZA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES
BC690761
Dec 16, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Section 1102.6 supplies the applicable framework for litigating and adjudicating section 1102.5 whistleblower claims. Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal. 5th 703, 712.
CHAN VS GEN 5 FERTILITY CENTER PC
37-2020-00033548-CU-WT-CTL
Feb 16, 2024
San Diego County, CA
Analysis Defendant Chuck Parker demurs to the First Cause of Action for Whistleblower Retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. Defendant contends this cause of action fails against him because section 1102.5 does not impose liability on individuals, but only on the employer. Labor Code section 1102.5 provides whistleblower protections to employees who disclose wrongdoing to authorities.
SANDRA HOWARD VS ART DIRECTORS GUILD, ET AL.
22STCV34661
Apr 28, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
The court therefore intends to conduct an in camera Pitchess review to determine which records or parts of the Giordano records support or contradict Plaintiff’s claims and/or version of events only as they relate to the whistleblower allegations.
FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)
FCS055842
Mar 14, 2023
Solano County, CA
The court therefore intends to conduct an in camera Pitchess review to determine which records or parts of the Giordano records support or contradict Plaintiff’s claims and/or version of events only as they relate to the whistleblower allegations.
FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)
FCS055842
Mar 16, 2023
Solano County, CA
Internal personnel matters which are disclosed between a supervisor and an employee—rather than the disclosure of a legal violation—do not amount to whistleblower activity. ( Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School Dist. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1384-1385.) Initially, the Court rejects Defendant’s contention that Plaintiff has failed to plead exhaustion of administrative remedies.
TURMEL WOODS VS CITY OF COMPTON, A MUNICIPALITY
19STCV34211
May 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
On December 14, 2018, Defendant Ace Industrial Supply, Inc. filed a complaint against Toolmasters Industrial Supply, Inc. (18STCV08405), whereby Defendant disclosed the identity of Plaintiff as a whistleblower. Plaintiff alleges that the disclosure of his name as a whistleblower prevents him from finding employment within “the same industry.”
JAMES UNDERWOOD VS TIMOTHY STEARNS, ET AL.
19CHCV00952
Apr 13, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
The court therefore intends to conduct an in camera Pitchess review to determine which records or parts of the Giordano records support or contradict Plaintiff’s claims and/or version of events only as they relate to the whistleblower allegations.
FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)
FCS055842
Mar 15, 2023
Solano County, CA
For Whistleblower Retaliation, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies since her pre-litigation claim does not apprise CDCR of CDCR’s alleged unlawful actions. For Harassment and Failure to Prevent Harassment, there are no allegations that CDCR knew or should have known about the harassment, and since the underlying claim fails, so, too, does the claim for Failure to Prevent Harassment.
COLEMAN VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHAB
RIC1904305
Jun 25, 2020
Riverside County, CA
The court finds this evidence more than sufficient to satisfy the Plaintiff’s burden here, to defeat summary adjudication of the whistleblower retaliation cause of action as to Defendant CITY OF VALLEJO (“CITY”). As earlier noted, Labor Code §1102.5(b)-(f), inclusive, authorizes possible whistleblower retaliation liability against “[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer”.
FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)
FCS055842
Jul 08, 2023
Solano County, CA
The court finds this evidence more than sufficient to satisfy the Plaintiff’s burden here, to defeat summary adjudication of the whistleblower retaliation cause of action as to Defendant CITY OF VALLEJO (“CITY”). As earlier noted, Labor Code §1102.5(b)-(f), inclusive, authorizes possible whistleblower retaliation liability against “[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer”.
FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)
FCS055842
Jul 07, 2023
Solano County, CA
The court finds this evidence more than sufficient to satisfy the Plaintiff’s burden here, to defeat summary adjudication of the whistleblower retaliation cause of action as to Defendant CITY OF VALLEJO (“CITY”). As earlier noted, Labor Code §1102.5(b)-(f), inclusive, authorizes possible whistleblower retaliation liability against “[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer”.
FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)
FCS055842
Jul 10, 2023
Solano County, CA
The court finds this evidence more than sufficient to satisfy the Plaintiff’s burden here, to defeat summary adjudication of the whistleblower retaliation cause of action as to Defendant CITY OF VALLEJO (“CITY”). As earlier noted, Labor Code §1102.5(b)-(f), inclusive, authorizes possible whistleblower retaliation liability against “[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer”.
FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)
FCS055842
Jul 09, 2023
Solano County, CA
Therefore, the Court finds that Pavek’s whistleblower retaliation cause of action is not barred for failure to allege exhaustion of internal administrative remedies. The County also makes the same arguments regarding the lack of an adverse employment action and lack of causal connection in support of its demurrer to the whistleblower retaliation claim.
KIM ELIZABETH PAVEK VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
BC696218
May 17, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
Linares-Plimpton states a cause of action for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code sec. 1102.5 based on her protected activity in complaining internally and to the District Attorney about the Boards unauthorized actions and retaliatory or intimidating conduct by Willoughby, Vasquez, and Camacho-Rodriguez, culminating in termination of her position in the August 14, 2020 RIF (and a PAGA claim based on whistleblower retaliation against other employees).
SANDRA M. LINARES-PLIMPTON VS CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, A PUBLIC AGENCY
21STCV06132
Jun 09, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5(a), (b), (d); 14. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE §1102.5(a), (b), (d), PREEMPTORY WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION; 15. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §1102.5(c), (1); AND 16. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF LABOR CODE §§6310, 64006404, ET SEQ., REPORTING WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY ISSUES.
GABRIEL FAJARDO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.
20STCV27886
Apr 18, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court found that Plaintiff Sara Berrelleza (Plaintiff) had not met her burden of showing that there were triable issues of fact for her causes of action for sexual harassment, FEHA retaliation, and whistleblower retaliation against Defendant. Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant on August 21, 2023. On December 4, 2023, Defendant filed a motion for recovery of attorney fees in the amount of $582,435.00.
SARA BERRELLEZA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
19STCV42550
Dec 29, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Whether Meyer actually engaged in unlawful conduct is not material to plaintiff's whistleblower claim. "[A]n employee need not prove an actual violation of law; itsuffices if the employer fired him for reporting his 'reasonably based suspicions' of illegal activity." (Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 87).
2019-00537529
Sep 17, 2021
Ventura County, CA
Plaintiff also argues the documents requested in Request for Production Nos. 251-253 are relevant to her breach of contract and whistleblower retaliation claims. With respect to the whistleblower retaliation claim under Labor Code § 1002.5, plaintiff does not address the Courts observation in the September 28, 2021 minute order that the valuation of the paper mill would appear irrelevant to the claim because valuation of the paper mill is not tied to any violation of state or federal laws or regulations.
JEFFREY QIUHONG YANG VS GLOBAL WIN CAPITAL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV45192
Nov 02, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.