Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Protections in California

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).

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.)

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.)

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.

The first document is a letter dated August 21, 2024, regarding plaintiffs whistleblower complaint to UCLA. (RJN, Ex. A.) Judicial notice of this letter is unnecessary because plaintiff submitted it as an exhibit in support of his motion. (Gil Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 3.) The other two documents are the University of California Whistleblower Protection Policy (WPP) (RJN, Ex. B) and UCLA Procedure 620.1: Whistleblower Retaliation Complaints (RJN, Ex. C).

On August 12, 2024, Jessie Colvin Jr. filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., Jolene Metzger, and Jason Steinberg for (1) whistleblower protection for public employees Gov. Code 8547.8, (2) whistleblower retaliation, (3) whistleblower protection for reporting labor laws - Labor Code § 6310, and (4) wrongful termination. On September 25, 2024, Defendants filed an Answer in which they assert a general denial and 30 affirmative defenses.

On August 12, 2024, Jessie Colvin Jr. filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., Jolene Metzger, and Jason Steinberg for (1) whistleblower protection for public employees Gov. Code 8547.8, (2) whistleblower retaliation, (3) whistleblower protection for reporting labor laws - Labor Code § 6310, and (4) wrongful termination.

In contrast, the Whistleblower Statute contains no such language. The Legislature knew how to impose individual liability if it wished to do so. The Legislature could have but chose not to use comparable language in the Whistleblower Statute (Section 1102.5, found at Section 1101 et seq). The Court must apply the Whistleblower Statute as it was drafted, and not as Plaintiff wishes it were drafted.

On August 12, 2024, Jessie Colvin Jr. filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., Jolene Metzger, and Jason Steinberg for (1) whistleblower protection for public employees Gov. Code 8547.8, (2) whistleblower retaliation, (3) whistleblower protection for reporting labor laws - Labor Code § 6310, and (4) wrongful termination. Plaintiff now seeks to quash all discovery served on him via email service because he did not agree to such service under CCP § 1010.6.

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.

Defendant contends that a valid claim for whistleblower retaliation requires that the employer itself (or an employee) be engaged in the alleged unlawful activity that is later reported. Protections do not extend to third parties. The Court agrees. The Court is unaware of any legal authority that allows employees complaints of unrelated third parties illegal conduct to constitute protected activity under the statute. As such, the facts alleged do not support a valid claim for whistleblower retaliation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The harassment claim, which is based on FEHA, fails because lodging whistleblower complaints is not a protected class for a harassment claim under the FEHA. (See Gov. Code § 12940(j).)

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.

Finally, Plaintiffs first cause of action asserts Defendants (the Teamsters Local 396 and Mineros) wrongfully discharged him in violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5, whistleblower retaliation. As such, the court finds that the LMRDA preempts Plaintiffs whistleblower retaliation cause of action. Plaintiff attempts to distinguish the facts of this case by arguing that Screen Extras Guild and similar cases are not true whistleblower cases and did not involve unlawful acts.

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.

On August 12, 2024, Jessie Colvin Jr. filed the operative Complaint against Defendants Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers, Inc., Jolene Metzger, and Jason Steinberg for (1) whistleblower protection for public employees Gov. Code 8547.8, (2) whistleblower retaliation, (3) whistleblower protection for reporting labor laws - Labor Code § 6310, and (4) wrongful termination. On September 25, 2024, Defendants filed an Answer in which they assert a general denial and 30 affirmative defenses.

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).)

Plaintiff also alleges sufficient facts to state a viable claim for whistleblower retaliation. Labor Code § 1102.5, commonly referred to as the whistleblower statute, provides protection for employees in reporting unlawful activities of their employers. To make prima facie showing of a violation of 1102.5 a plaintiff must show (1) he engaged in a protected activity, (2) the employer subjected him to an adverse employment action, and (3) there is a causal link between the two. ( McVeigh v.

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.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleged a single cause of action, for violation of Labor Code §1102.5 (whistleblower retaliation). Subsection (b) protects against retaliation against an employee who discloses or is believed at risk for disclosing information that employee has reasonable cause to believe discloses a violation of statute, rule or regulation by the employer.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleged a single cause of action, for violation of Labor Code §1102.5 (whistleblower retaliation). Subsection (b) protects against retaliation against an employee who discloses or is believed at risk for disclosing information that employee has reasonable cause to believe discloses a violation of statute, rule or regulation by the employer.

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint alleged a single cause of action, for violation of Labor Code §1102.5 (whistleblower retaliation). Subsection (b) protects against retaliation against an employee who discloses or is believed at risk for disclosing information that employee has reasonable cause to believe discloses a violation of statute, rule or regulation by the employer.

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.

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.)

Ramirez’s capacity as an attorney for the City or City Manager are essential elements of Plaintiffs whistleblower claims. The receipt of a whistleblower complaint is an official act a government employee and is not protected from discovery by claim of privilege. If Mr.

Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts to support a cause of action for whistleblower retaliation against Defendant City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges that he believed his fellow employees lack of fare evasion enforcement was itself illegal.

Since the whistleblower protection provided by Labor Code § 1102.5 does not apply to employees who only report concerns internally, Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence to support liability for whistleblower retaliation. (Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 77.) 3rd CofA: Although Defendants are correct (that Plaintiff does not qualify as a whistleblower under Labor Code § 1102.5, this is not required to support a wrongful termination claim.

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.

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.)

The Court denies Defendants request for judicial notice and does not consider evidence relating to the substantive merits of Plaintiffs whistleblower claim as all are irrelevant to the Courts disposition of the motion. ( Code Civ. Proc., § 437c (q) ["In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, the court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion.

Plaintiffs assert a cause of action for whistleblower retaliation. Labor Code section 1102.5 provides whistleblower protections to employees who disclose wrongdoing to authorities.

LACMTA argues that Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to establish an employer-employee relationship for a cause of action for whistleblower retaliation. For whistleblower retaliation, Labor Code section 1102.5(b) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for reporting information that the employee has reasonable cause to believe & discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.

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.)

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.

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.

Labor Code section 1102.5, is Californias general whistleblower statute. ( Winston v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 402, 407 [quotations and citations removed].)

Accordingly, any complaint that Plaintiff filed with the Academic Senate does not constitute protected activity under the whistleblower statute. As noted above, Plaintiff addresses only the issue of a causal link in her Opposition, and fails to raise any triable issue of material fact to support that any of her complaints constitute protected activity under the whistleblower statute. (Opposition, p. 10.) (Court’s December 18, 2025 Tentative Ruling, p. 12.)

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.

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.

Plaintiffs have noted that the CDRC had its own website for filing whistleblower retaliation complaints. Ashley utilized this procedure. As such, there is a dispute as to material fact number 12. Additionally, the requirement to file with the State Personnel Board is applicable to Government Code section 8547.8 whistleblower retaliation complaints. (Bjorndal v. Superior Court (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1112.)

In Tillery , the district court was faced with a Federal Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in which individual non-employer defendants argued that the plaintiffs whistleblower retaliation claim was invalid under the newly amended Labor Code Section 1102.5. The district court first noted that California courts have not addressed the issue of whether individual non-employers may be liable under the whistleblower statute in light of the Labor Codes 2014 amendment.

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.

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.

As to cause of action five for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code 1102.5 and 1105.6, Avis argues that Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing a violation. Labor Code “Section 1102.6 requires whistleblower plaintiffs to show that retaliation was a ‘contributing factor’ in their termination, demotion, or other adverse action. This means plaintiffs may satisfy their burden of proving unlawful retaliation even when other, legitimate factors also contributed to the adverse action.” (Lawson v.

The City believes that two indicators demonstrate whether the parties agreed to arbitrate Plaintiffs whistleblower claim. First, the City states that the MOU identifies which grievance types are subject to expedited processing: To resolve issues at the appropriate level, the following issues will be automatically waived to the City Attorney level of the grievance process. . . . Whistleblower complaints. (MOU, p. 28.)

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.

Plaintiffs FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Whistleblower Retaliation (Lab. Code § 1102.5) (2) Whistleblower Retaliation (Lab. Code § 6310) (3) Whistleblower Retaliation (Lab. Code § 98.6) (4) Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy (5) Unfair Competition in Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 Defendants generally demur to each cause of action.

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.

Matter on the Law & Motion Calendar for Tuesday, June 4, 2024, line 1, 1 - PLAINTIFF JOSE RODRIGUEZ JR'S Motion For Order Of Protection For Employee Whistleblower Continued to June 18 2024, to be heard on the discovery calendar at 9:00 a.m. = (302/RBU)

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.

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.

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.

These facts sufficiently describe whistleblower retaliation. Defendants argue that the allegations amount to minor workplace grievances and that Plaintiff did not report any violation of law. However, the complaint alleges that Defendants failed to provide adequate breaks and overtime compensation in violation of the Labor Code. (Compl. ¶¶ 25-30.)

Plaintiff cites the seven distinct causes of action and the nature of a whistleblower case involving a public entity. (Id.) Plaintiff also argues that the RFAs are tailored to discrete issues, such as caseload standards, workload policies, retaliation, whistleblower protections, timing of adverse actions in relation to protected activities, and Defendant’s internal policies. She asserts that Defendant failed to show undue burden with particular facts.

Plaintiff cites the seven distinct causes of action and the nature of a whistleblower case involving a public entity. (Id.) Plaintiff also argues that the RFAs are tailored to discrete issues, such as caseload standards, workload policies, retaliation, whistleblower protections, timing of adverse actions in relation to protected activities, and Defendant’s internal policies. She asserts that Defendant failed to show undue burden with particular facts.

Plaintiff cites the seven distinct causes of action and the nature of a whistleblower case involving a public entity. (Id.) Plaintiff also argues that the RFAs are tailored to discrete issues, such as caseload standards, workload policies, retaliation, whistleblower protections, timing of adverse actions in relation to protected activities, and Defendant’s internal policies. She asserts that Defendant failed to show undue burden with particular facts.

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

--[endif]-->1st Cause of Action:WhistleblowerRetaliation The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding his purported reporting to supervisors of Defendants’ alleged fraudulent timekeeping and billing practices to NASA, and his subsequent termination are sufficient to state a claim forwhistleblowerretaliation.

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.

Procedural History The Underlying Arbitration, which was initiated on November 12, 2021, and is still pending, involves a whistleblower employment dispute between Plaintiff and the University of Southern California. (D-RJN, Exh. A.) Plaintiff alleges two claims against USC: (1) a claim for whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code §1102.5, and (2) a claim for wrongful constructive termination. On June 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request to remove the case from JAMS. (D-RJN, Exh. B.)

D. 3rd Cause of Action - Violation of California Whistleblower Protection Act (Gov. Code § 8547.1) Gov.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

Summarized, Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants retaliated against him for filing a whistleblower complaint with the Solano County Resource Management Department by initiating a building code violation action on a previously ignored unpermitted building on Plaintiff’s property shortly after Plaintiff filed the whistleblower complaint. Claim Presentation Requirements.

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.

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.

Second, Plaintiff argues that EO 1116 only applies to claims under the California Whistleblower Protection Act. Indeed, EO 1116 provides a special complaint procedure for employees alleging Retaliation for making a Protected Disclosure under the California Whistleblower Protection Act. (RJN, Ex. A.) Claims under Labor Code sections 98.6 and 1102.5 are distinct from those under Government Code section 8547.12, which provides a special procedure which may be used by CSU employees only. (Gov.

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.

On 8/22/2024, Plaintiff Teresita Perez (Plaintiff) filed suit against Vetcor Management Company LLC dba Pasadena Pets Veterinary Hospital, Jennifer Lopez, and Stansilav Avezov (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) disability discrimination; (2) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (3) failure to engage in the interactive process; (4) retaliation; (5) failure to prevent; (6) whistleblower retaliation (Labor Code section 1102.5,6); (7) whistleblower retaliation (Labor Code section 232.5); (8) wrongful

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.

Accordingly, the remaining causes of action at issue are: (1) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (4) Retaliation in Violation of Whistleblower Protection; and (6) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in violation of FEHA. On April 15, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of the 4AC.

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.

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.)

(A) Whistleblower Claim
Narez’s first cause of action is for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5. This claim is asserted against all defendants.
Defendants demur on the grounds that Narez does not identify the statute, rule, or regulation that any defendant violated, that Narez does not adequately allege causation, and that section 1102.5 does not impose liability on the individual defendants.
Defendants cite Bales v. County of El Dorado (E.D.Cal.

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).

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.).

As Plaintiff explains, because her whistleblower retaliation claim is based on the same conduct supporting her FEHA retaliation claim (compare Complaint, ¶ 26 with Complaint, ¶ 88), proceeding on her whistleblower retaliation claim through internal administrative channels would have had a preclusive effect on her FEHA retaliation claim. Plaintiffs position finds some footing in the case law. In Schifando v.

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

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.)

Case Number: 25STCV25385 Hearing Date: July 7, 2026 Dept: 517 Plaintiff Jane Doe sued Defendant Target Corporation and two individual Defendants for sexual harassment in the workplace, failure to prevent harassment, and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and for whistleblower retaliation in violation of section 1102.5 of the Labor Code. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to proceed under a pseudonym. The Court is denying the Plaintiff's motion.

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.)

Accordingly, the remaining causes of action at issue are: (1) Discrimination in Violation of FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (4) Retaliation in Violation of Whistleblower Protection; and (6) Failure to Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, or Retaliation in violation of FEHA. On April 15, 2025, Defendant filed the instant motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of the 4AC.

CU25-01681 Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings TENTATIVE RULING Defendants NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC. and NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION move for judgment on the pleadings against the first cause of action within Plaintiff SAID ISMAIL’s complaint, alleging whistleblower retaliation in violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5. Defendants contend that the claim is time-barred.

CU25-01681 Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings TENTATIVE RULING Defendants NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC. and NORTHBAY HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION move for judgment on the pleadings against the first cause of action within Plaintiff SAID ISMAIL’s complaint, alleging whistleblower retaliation in violation of Health and Safety Code section 1278.5. Defendants contend that the claim is time-barred.