In Cornejo v. Lightbourne, published October 22, 2013, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed an order sustaining the demurrer of a state agency to a lawsuit filed in 2010 by an employee of the agency for alleged violation of the California Whistleblower Protection Act, Government Code section 8547 et seq. The employee alleged that as a result of her reports, which started in 1999, she experienced retaliation beginning in 2002. She filed a series of administrative complaints over the intervening years alleging retaliation. They resulted in investigations, findings issued by the State Personnel Board's executive officer, a hearing and decision by a hearing officer. She never presented a claim for damages. The trial court sustained the agency's demurrer on the ground that the plaintiff had not complied with the Government Claims Act.
The appellate court held that in light of the administrative remedies that a plaintiff must pursue under the Whistleblower Protection Act before suing for damages, there is no need for the plaintiff to also present a claim for damages under the Government Claims Act. Generally, a plaintiff must both exhaust any applicable administrative remendies and present a claim for damages before suing a public entity. Where administrative remedies exist, a court will infer a legislative intent to excuse compliance with the Claims Act only where a claim is based on a statutory scheme with a functionally equivalent claims process and a comparable scheme for administrative enforcement. Such exceptions to the Claims Act are rarely found; until this case, with one exception, the claims found exempt are FEHA claims. The court noted, however, that the Whistleblower Act remedies require the plaintiff to present an administrative complaint that requires information similar to that required in a claim. Further, the Act provides for extensive investigation of allegations. Therefore, requiring compliance with the Claims Act would be duplicative.
The court noted that a pending bill would add Whistleblower Protection Act suits to the types of suits listed in Government Code section 905.2 as exempt from the claims requirement.
Because the action is exempt from the Government Claims Act, the statutes of limitations prescribed in Government Code section 945.6 do not apply to the action either.
Comments