Plaintiff Farzana Chaudhry appeals after the trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the State of California; Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR); and William Kushner, Rashad Hanif, and Lori Austin (individual defendants) on Chaudhry’s causes of action for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 and the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Gov. Code, § 8547 et seq.; Whistleblower Protection Act) and constructive discharge in violation of public policy. Chaudhry does not challenge the judgment on her constructive discharge cause of action but contends the trial court erred when it ruled that she failed to satisfy the claims presentation requirement of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.) for her claim under section 1102.5 and failed to exhaust her administrative remedies for her Whistleblower Protection Act cause of action.
We agree with Chaudhry in part. Her operative complaint adequately alleges compliance with the Government Claims Act as to one theory supporting her section 1102.5 cause of action. But she does not allege facts showing that she satisfied the exhaustion of remedies requirement for her Whistleblower Protection Act cause of action, and she does not identify any potential amendment that would remedy this defect.
The individual defendants argue, as an alternative basis for affirming the judgment in their favor, that individual supervisors are not liable for retaliation under section 1102.5. In a matter of first impression in California courts, we agree. That statute, when examined in the context of the statutory scheme of which it is a part, is ambiguous as to whether it applies to individual supervisors. In resolving that ambiguity, we take guidance from Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, which held that an employment statute worded similarly to Labor Code section 1102.5 does not apply to individual supervisors. We will therefore affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.
There are 0 comments