Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Protections in California

What Are Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Protections?

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.

Labor Code, § 1102.5

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,

  1. the plaintiff must initially establish a prima facie case of retaliation,
  2. the defendant must then articulate a legitimate nonretaliatory explanation for its acts, and
  3. in response, the plaintiff must show that this explanation is merely a pretext for the retaliation.

(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

  1. she engaged in a protected activity,
  2. her employer subjected her to an adverse employment action, and
  3. there is a causal link between the two.”

(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.)

Labor Code, § 6310

“[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).)

Government Code, § 8547.1

“[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

  1. an improper governmental activity, or
  2. a condition that may significantly threaten the health or safety of employees or the public if the disclosure or intention to disclose was made for the purpose of remedying that condition.”

(Gov. Code § 8547.2(e).)

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

  1. is in violation of any state or federal law or regulation,
  2. in violation of state policy, procedure, or executive order, or
  3. grossly negligent, incompetent, or wasteful.

(Gov. Code § 8547.2(c).)

Rulings for Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Protections in California

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.

  • Name

    MICHAEL LITTLE ET AL VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

  • Case No.

    19CV01431

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

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).

  • Name

    ARTHUR LITTLE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV36102

  • Hearing

    Jun 01, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    ARTHUR LITTLE VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV36102

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2023

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    MARK SIGNA ET AL VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

  • Case No.

    18CV05728

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

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.

  • Name

    JONATHAN LEE REYES VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL

  • Case No.

    19CV02586

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2021

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.

  • Name

    WILLIAM R CORDERO VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC488483

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2018

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.

  • Name

    ALI REZA JAZIREHI VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV45102

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SHOHREH SAMIMI VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CA ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC696641

  • Hearing

    Mar 04, 2019

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.

  • Name

    MONTERROSA VS OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    RG19047997

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DAVID CROCKET VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY ETC ET AL

  • Case No.

    1440438

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2014

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).)

  • Name

    BARBARA SCOTT,, AN INDIVIDUAL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV22590

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2023

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.

  • Name

    ERIC ROBINSON VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC714394

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

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.

  • Name

    MEHDI FAKHRAI MD VS DAVID ROSENBERG

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00018411-CU-PN-CTL

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2018

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.

  • Name

    JEFFREY QIUHONG YANG VS GLOBAL WIN CAPITAL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV45192

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    RAYMUNDO VS SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO

  • Case No.

    CVRI2103679

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    PIERRE DEMIAN VS MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A LOCAL PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL AGENCY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV46429

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SAMUEL TAPIA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A PUBLIC ENTITY

  • Case No.

    22STCV14854

  • Hearing

    Apr 21, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    GODREY RUFFIN VS U S TELEPACIFIC CORP ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC621220

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2017

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.)

  • Name

    SUSAN LEW VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

  • Case No.

    34-2010-00083294-CU-PO-GDS

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2012

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.

  • Name

    SHENETTA D TONEY VS. LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UOE-2015-0005208

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

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.)

  • Name

    JORGE MATA VS FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCP01694

  • Hearing

    May 23, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HOLT VS CITY OF OAKLAND

  • Case No.

    RG19042198

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2021

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.

  • Name

    STEPHEN MACKINNON VS. THE CITY OF SANTA PAULA

  • Case No.

    56-2013-00433766-CU-WT-VTA

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2013

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.

  • Name

    DAWN HOLMES, PHD V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    17VB00106

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2017

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.

  • Name

    DEIDRE GAVIN VS ORANGE TWIST, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV04602

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

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.

  • Name

    TRANG LE VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV18463

  • Hearing

    Mar 21, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    AMINAH MIMS VS LADERA HEIGHTS PREP PRESCHOOL ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC611482

  • Hearing

    May 05, 2017

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.

  • Name

    EDGAR PRADO VS CASTA CONSTRUCTION INC.

  • Case No.

    19CHCV00325

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

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.

  • Name

    DAVID MATHEWS VS GENE SIMMONS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV03952

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    OCTAVIO VALDEZ VS THE HERRICK CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UOE-2020-0000625

  • Hearing

    Mar 26, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ARCADIA MONTES ET AL VS DAVID LAWSON

  • Case No.

    BC613625

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2017

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.

  • Name

    BARBIE BARRETT, MD.,MS, VS. SUTTER BAY HOSPITALS, DBA MILLS-PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL

  • Case No.

    21-CIV-04228

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2022

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.

  • Name

    ERLINDA O. AQUINO VS JANET GARCIA

  • Case No.

    KC067384

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2017

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.

  • Name

    GABRIELA AGUAYO VS ARCHIBALD SURGERY CENTER LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC613590

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2016

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.

  • Name

    LUIS PEREZ V. DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    PSC 1701253

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2017

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.

  • Name

    SINDY BUFORD VS. MATHESON TRUCKING INC

  • Case No.

    34-2018-00226011-CU-WT-GDS

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

The Court will thus grant summary adjudication as to the whistleblower retaliation claim and the defamation claim.

  • Name

    SYLVIA VERONICA SCOTT VS BURBANK UNITIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    19STCV08953

  • Hearing

    May 21, 2021

  • Judge

    12/14/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    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.)

  • Name

    STEPHEN COX VS LOS BANOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CV-03839

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2023

  • County

    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.”

  • Name

    JAMES UNDERWOOD VS TIMOTHY STEARNS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CHCV00952

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2020

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.

  • Name

    KARIMI VS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CA TRANS

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00916063-CU-WT-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2019

Plaintiff’s whistleblower retaliation cause of action is based on the same underlying allegations as his violation of Labor Code §6310 cause of action.

  • Name

    MONTGOMERY BRIDGES VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    20STCV39714

  • Hearing

    May 27, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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).

  • Name

    ASHLEY SCHEESLEY VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

  • Case No.

    22CECG01387

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2024

  • County

    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.).

  • Name

    ERIC ROBINSON VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC714394

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2019

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.)

  • Name

    ELSIE COLEMAN VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23SMCV00073

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2024

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    JEFFREY RUBIN VS CITY OF CALABASAS, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV19874

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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."

  • Name

    LIMON VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

  • Case No.

    37-2018-00029993-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2018

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.

  • Name

    CONNIE CHEIN, M.D. VS PROVIDENCE SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21SMCV01884

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    ERIC ROBINSON VS COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC714394

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2019

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.

  • Name

    FRANCIS FOGANG LAGUFU VS REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    BC719722

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

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.

  • Case No.

    Re: Amy Consolati v. Atascadero State Hospital

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2017

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    CHRISTINA DEMAURO VS PROSPECT MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

  • Case No.

    SC129061

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

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.

  • Name

    HERMAN MORALES VS QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV04401

  • Hearing

    Aug 22, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HERMAN MORALES VS QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV04401

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    WUCHERPFENNIG V. PADI AMERICAS INCORPORATED

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01080435

  • Hearing

    Dec 21, 2020

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.

  • Name

    ELTON LYNUM VS INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

  • Case No.

    22TRCV00237

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JOHN DOE VS BRIXINVEST, LLC

  • Case No.

    19STCV33375

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

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.

  • Name

    JESSICA SCHINDLER VS DIGNITY HEALTH

  • Case No.

    21CV-02878

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    VICTORIA LARSON VS PEGASUS ELITE AVIATION, LLC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    20STCV31537

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    HOYUELA VS SMILE BRANDS INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01005391-CU-WT-CXC

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2018

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

  • Name

    PATRICIA SCHWADE, ET AL. VS SOUTH PASADENA CARE CENTER, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV11010

  • Hearing

    Dec 12, 2019

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.

  • Name

    DURANT MCLEOD VS CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS SERVICE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV14848

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    DURANT MCLEOD VS CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS SERVICE, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV14848

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MARIO CARDONA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    22STCV17208

  • Hearing

    Sep 06, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    OMAR NOORZAI VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV04913

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2023

  • County

    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).)

  • Name

    MIELKE VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

  • Case No.

    RG20081227

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2024

  • County

    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

  • Name

    JOANNA ELLIOTT VS PEPPERDINE UNIVERSITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV05234

  • Hearing

    Sep 08, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    KEVIN OKAMOTO VS CITY OF PASADENA

  • Case No.

    BC602657

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2018

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.

  • Name

    JAKE HAMMOND VS ADVANCED SEALING, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV34894

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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.)

  • Name

    BENJAMIN RESENDEZ VS GUY F. ATKINSON CONSTRUCTION, LLC., A MARYLAND LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV33698

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    PEOPLES V. EL DORADO COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

  • Case No.

    PC-20160548

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

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.

  • Name

    LENORA YOU VS RITE AID ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC664662

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2019

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.

  • Name

    JOSEPH LEE VS BERTRANDT U.S., INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV34562

  • Hearing

    Apr 14, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    JUAN ALVARADO VS FRESHPOINT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC.A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22PSCV00655

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2022

  • County

    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.)

  • Name

    ASHLEY SCHEESLEY VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

  • Case No.

    22CECG01387

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KARO VS COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00044141-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2018

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).

  • Name

    VICTOR REGLA VS CITY OF HUNTINGTON PARK, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV06618

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    MACY V. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2021-01182859

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2021

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.

  • Name

    JOSEPH LEE VS BERTRANDT U.S., INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV34562

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    ANDREW WILLIAMS VS IAC/INTERACTIVECORP, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20SMCV01090

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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.

  • Name

    SCARLETT OSTERLING VS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV05256

  • Hearing

    Aug 24, 2020

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.

  • Name

    ANGELA WALTON VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV18166

  • Hearing

    Dec 08, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    LILLIAN L CARANZA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC690761

  • Hearing

    Dec 16, 2019

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.

  • Name

    CHAN VS GEN 5 FERTILITY CENTER PC

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00033548-CU-WT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Feb 16, 2024

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SANDRA HOWARD VS ART DIRECTORS GUILD, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV34661

  • Hearing

    Apr 28, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS055842

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS055842

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    TURMEL WOODS VS CITY OF COMPTON, A MUNICIPALITY

  • Case No.

    19STCV34211

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    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.”

  • Name

    JAMES UNDERWOOD VS TIMOTHY STEARNS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19CHCV00952

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2021

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS055842

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    COLEMAN VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND REHAB

  • Case No.

    RIC1904305

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

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”.

  • Name

    FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS055842

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2023

  • County

    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”.

  • Name

    FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS055842

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2023

  • County

    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”.

  • Name

    FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS055842

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2023

  • County

    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”.

  • Name

    FCS055842 - WHITNEY, JOHN VS THE CITY OF VALLEJO AND ITS (DMS)

  • Case No.

    FCS055842

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2023

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    KIM ELIZABETH PAVEK VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

  • Case No.

    BC696218

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2019

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).

  • Name

    SANDRA M. LINARES-PLIMPTON VS CENTRAL BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, A PUBLIC AGENCY

  • Case No.

    21STCV06132

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    GABRIEL FAJARDO VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV27886

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2022

  • County

    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.

  • Name

    SARA BERRELLEZA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    19STCV42550

  • Hearing

    Dec 29, 2023

  • County

    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).

  • Case No.

    2019-00537529

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2021

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.

  • Name

    JEFFREY QIUHONG YANG VS GLOBAL WIN CAPITAL CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV45192

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope