Taswell

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I.

PRIOR APPEAL

“In April 2012, Taswell filed an internal complaint for whistleblower retaliation, alleging the decisions to place him on investigatory leave and not to renew his contract constituted retaliation for his whistleblowing activities. He also initiated a grievance procedure pursuant to [UCI]’s academic personnel manual.” (Taswell v. Regents of University of California (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 343, 349.) The hearing officer “concluded

2 [UCI] did not retaliate against Taswell because of his whistleblower activities and that the university would not have renewed Taswell’s contract even if he had not engaged in those activities.” (Ibid.) After the Vice Provost for Academic Personnel approved the hearing officer’s decision, Taswell exhausted UCI’s administrative grievance process. (Ibid.) Rather than file a petition seeking a writ of mandamus, on July 1, 2013, Taswell filed the instant action against The Regents. The operative fourth amended complaint asserted claims for retaliation under Government Code sections 8547 and 12653, Labor Code section 1102.5, and Health and Safety Code section 1278.5. The trial court granted summary judgment for The…