Patten

Patten v. Grant Joint Union High School District

Bad Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 1378·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1933·2005 Daily Journal DAR 14587·37 Cal. Rptr. 3d 113·23 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1588
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 19, 2005C048156California4,028 words

Opinion

Opinion

Davis, J.

In this appeal, we conclude that the standard of “adverse employment action” that our state Supreme Court recently defined and applied to an employment retaliation lawsuit under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) also applies to an employment retaliation lawsuit under Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) (retaliation for whistleblowing regarding reasonably believed legal violations). (See Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028 [ 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 436 ] (Yanowitz).

In applying this standard, we reverse a summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer, Grant Joint Union High School District (Grant). We conclude that plaintiff Colleen Patten (Patten) has raised a triable issue of material fact regarding whether her transfer from one principal position to another constituted an adverse employment action.

Background

At the time of the relevant events here, Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) (hereafter section 1102.5(b)) provided: “No employer shall retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.