The California Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling this year in a case brought against the city of Inglewood by its longtime former City Treasurer Dr. Wanda Brown.
Issue presented: Are elected officials “employees” for purposes of whistleblower protection under Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b)?
Brown, the elected treasurer of Inglewood since 1987, sued the City and several members of the Inglewood City Council. Brown alleged that after she reported concerns about financial improprieties, the City and the individual defendants defamed and retaliated against her. She brought claims for defamation, violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 (which prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting illegal activities), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
The defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which aims to prevent lawsuits that are intended to silence free speech. The trial court granted the motion in part but denied it regarding the Section 1102.5 retaliation claim and the IIED claim based on retaliation.
On appeal, the California Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision in part. The appellate court ruled that Brown, as an elected official, is not considered an “employee” under Section 1102.5, and therefore, her retaliation claim under this statute was not legally sufficient. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the inclusion of elected officials in the definition of “employee” in other statutes (e.g., the Workers’ Compensation Act) but not within the definition for purposes of Section 1102.5 reflected the legislature’s plain decision to deny them the protections of that section of the Labor Code. Consequently, the court also struck down the retaliation-based IIED claim against the individual defendants.
The California Supreme Court’s decision will be significant for public entities as it clarifies the scope of whistleblower protection under Labor Code section 1102.5.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd
The issue presented: Should the calculation of enhanced workers’ compensation benefits for an employer’s serious and willful misconduct under Labor Code section 4553 be based on temporary disability payments available under the Labor Code?
Michael Ayala, a correctional officer, was severely injured in a preplanned attack by inmates in August 2002. Ayala filed a workers’ compensation claim, alleging that his injury was caused by the serious and willful misconduct of his employer, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Under Labor Code section 4553, such allegations could increase the compensation recoverable by one-half if proven.
The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) initially found that CDCR had failed to act on credible threats of inmate violence, which were reported before the attack. This decision was based on the Board’s finding that CDCR took the facility off lockdown despite knowing about the planned attack.
However, the California Court of Appeal annulled the WCAB’s decision. The Court held that the compensation Ayala received while on industrial disability leave and enhanced industrial disability leave did not qualify as “compensation” under Section 4553 because while the Government Code did provide for industrial disability leave and enhanced industrial disability leave, their inclusion of “temporary disability” under the Government Code definition of “industrial disability” did not alter the Labor Code’s definition for the purposes of determining compensation under Section 4553. Therefore, the base compensation for calculating the increased award should have been what Ayala would have received on temporary disability, which is typically two-thirds of his salary.
The decision will be important for employers in evaluating the settlement of serious and willful claims, which typically are not covered by worker’s compensation insurance.
2 Comments
Hmm free ride ? So nice to have the commentor acknowledge the Treasurer as well as the City Clerk and City Council and Mayor Salaries are exorbitant free rides. INDEED NONE OF SALARIES ARE JUSTIFIABLE.
However the lawsuit is about workplace harassment, and the verbal attacks on Dr. Brown’s competency and character for expressing her concern re City Finances.
No person, individual, employee, or community member, deserves to be treated with the incredible disrespect that is ordinary everyday behaviour of the Inglewood City Council.
That Dr Brown pointed out that there have been/are financial concerns is not only her right as a resident but her responsibility as the elected City Treasurer.
This administration is essentially spending on the residents credit cards. Bonds near payoff – meaning the “voted indebtedness” line on homeowner property tax bills would be adjusted to reflect that loan to the city was paid off . James Butts however in his “disrespectful to all” manner WITHOUT a public vote extended the bond issue – essentially taking out another loan which property owners will have to repay as part of their property tax.
Taxation without Respresentation sound familiar?
This additional bond issue will be paid by homeowners for years to come….yes, that $500.00 tax relief is not about surplus folks….it will cost homeowners much much so much more over years to come.
Dr Brown’s concerns should have been respectfully listened to even if her suggestions were ignored. ..Instead James Butts retaliated by locking her out of the physical office she was elected to and reduced the salary residents voted for, in addition to consistently attempting to persuade the community she was not telling the truth.
Isn’t it Butts we can count on to being less than truthful? How about his claim “residents voted for the stadium” and there would be “no traffic congestion”…in reality there was no ballot measure for the stadium and if you think there is no traffic congestion as a result of the stadium please try to get to the Century Target or Marshals shopping centers on Ram/Charger Day especially if there is a Clipper game that evening.
The commentor is correct when declaring Dr Brown has been part of the problem…she could have raised her voice much more often when ever she witnessed the misuse of public funds!! By that standard each City Councilmember and the City Clerk deserve an even greater evaluation of being jokes aka not community mind but rather in it for a free ride.
Who believes Inglewood Finances need close scutiny?
she went along with ALL of it and benefited financially for decades with Dorn and new admin. She deserves SQUAT. She was part of the problem and is only cring because her free ride ended.