California Whistleblower Protection Act

California Whistleblower Protection Act

California Government Code
Sections 8547-8547.12

8547. This article shall be known and may be cited as the
“California Whistleblower Protection Act.”

8547.1. The Legislature finds and declares that state employees should be free to report waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation of law, or threat to public health without fear of retribution. The Legislature further finds and declares that public servants best serve the citizenry when they can be candid and honest without reservation in conducting the people’s business.

8547.2. For the purposes of this article:

(a) “Employee” means any individual appointed by the Governor or employed or holding office in a state agency as defined by Section 11000, including, for purposes of Sections 8547.3 to 8547.7, inclusive, any employee of the California State University.

(b) “Improper governmental activity” means any activity by a state agency or by an employee that is undertaken in the performance of the employee’s official duties, whether or not that action is within the scope of his or her employment, and that (1) is in violation of any state or federal law or regulation, including, but not limited to, corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion, conversion, malicious prosecution, misuse of government property, or willful omission to perform duty, or

(2) is economically wasteful, or involves gross misconduct, incompetency, or inefficiency. For purposes of Sections 8547.4, 8547.5, 8547.10, and 8547.11, “improper governmental activity”
includes any activity by the University of California or by an
employee, including an officer or faculty member, who otherwise meets the criteria of this subdivision.

(c) “Person” means any individual, corporation, trust,
association, any state or local government, or any agency or
instrumentality of any of the foregoing.

(d) “Protected disclosure” means any good faith communication that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose information that may evidence

(1) an improper governmental activity or

(2) any condition that may significantly threaten the health or safety of employees or the public if the disclosure or intention to disclose was made for the purpose of remedying that condition.

(e) “Illegal order” means any directive to violate or assist in
violating a federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation or any
order to work or cause others to work in conditions outside of their line of duty that would unreasonably threaten the health or safety of employees or the public.

(f) “State agency” is defined by Section 11000. “State agency”
includes the University of California for purposes of Sections
8547.5 to 8547.7, inclusive, and the California State University for
purposes of Sections 8547.3 to 8547.7, inclusive.

8547.3. (a) An employee may not directly or indirectly use or
attempt to use the official authority or influence of the employee
for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command any person for the purpose of interfering with the rights conferred pursuant to this article.

(b) For the purpose of subdivision (a), “use of official authority or influence” includes promising to confer, or conferring, any benefit; effecting, or threatening to effect, any reprisal; or taking, or directing others to take, or recommending, processing, or approving, any personnel action, including, but not limited to, appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation, suspension, or other disciplinary action.

(c) Any employee who violates subdivision (a) may be liable in an
action for civil damages brought against the employee by the offended party.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize an
individual to disclose information otherwise prohibited by or under law.

8547.4. The State Auditor shall administer the provisions of this
article and shall investigate and report on improper governmental
activities. If, after investigating, the State Auditor finds that an
employee may have engaged or participated in improper governmental activities, the State Auditor shall send a copy of the investigative report to the employee’s appointing power. Within 60 days after receiving a copy of the State Auditor’s investigative report, the appointing power shall either serve a notice of adverse action upon the employee who is the subject of the investigative report or set forth in writing its reasons for not taking adverse action. The appointing power shall file a copy of the notice of adverse action with the State Personnel Board in accordance with Section 19574, and shall submit a copy to the State Auditor. If the appointing power does not take adverse action, it shall submit its written reasons for not doing so to the State Auditor and the State Personnel Board, and adverse action may be taken as provided in Section 19583.5. Any employee who is served with a notice of adverse action may appeal to
the State Personnel Board in accordance with Section 19575.

8547.5. Upon receiving specific information that any employee or
state agency has engaged in an improper governmental activity, the State Auditor may conduct an investigative audit of the matter. The identity of the person providing the information that initiated the investigative audit shall not be disclosed without the written permission of the person providing the information unless the disclosure is to a law enforcement agency that is conducting a criminal investigation.

8547.6. The State Auditor may request the assistance of any state department, agency, or employee in conducting any investigative audit required by this article. If an investigative audit conducted by the State Auditor involves access to confidential academic peer review records of University of California academic personnel, these records shall be provided in a form consistent with university policy effective on August 1, 1992. No information obtained from the State Auditor by any department, agency, or employee as a result of the
State Auditor’s request for assistance, nor any information obtained thereafter as a result of further investigation, shall be divulged or made known to any person without the prior approval of the State Auditor.

8547.7. (a) If the State Auditor determines that there is
reasonable cause to believe that an employee or state agency has engaged in any improper governmental activity, he or she shall report the nature and details of the activity to the head of the employing agency, or the appropriate appointing authority. If appropriate, the State Auditor shall report this information to the Attorney General, the policy committees of the Senate and Assembly having jurisdiction over the subject involved, and to any other authority that the State Auditor determines appropriate.

(b) The State Auditor shall not have any enforcement power. In
any case in which the State Auditor submits a report of alleged
improper activity to the head of the employing agency or appropriate appointing authority, that individual shall report to the State Auditor with respect to any action taken by the individual regarding the activity, the first report being transmitted no later than 30 days after the date of the State Auditor’s report and monthly thereafter until final action has been taken.

(c) Every investigative audit shall be kept confidential, except
that the State Auditor may issue any report of an investigation that has been substantiated, keeping confidential the identity of the individual or individuals involved, or release any findings resulting from an investigation conducted pursuant to this article that is deemed necessary to serve the interests of the state.

(d) This section shall not limit any authority conferred upon the
Attorney General or any other department or agency of government to investigate any matter.

8547.8. (a) A state employee or applicant for state employment who files a written complaint with his or her supervisor, manager, or the appointing power alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts prohibited by Section 8547.3, may also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board, together with a sworn statement that the contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint filed with the board, shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.

(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal,
retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a state
employee or applicant for state employment for having made a
protected disclosure, is subject to a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed one year. Pursuant to Section 19683, any state civil service employee who intentionally engages in that conduct shall be disciplined by adverse action as provided by Section 19572.

(c) In addition to all other penalties provided by law, any person
who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar acts against a state employee or applicant for
state employment for having made a protected disclosure shall be liable in an action for damages brought against him or her by the injured party. Punitive damages may be awarded by the court where the acts of the offending party are proven to be malicious. Where liability has been established, the injured party shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by law. However, any action for damages shall not be available to the injured party unless the injured party has first filed a complaint with the State Personnel Board pursuant to subdivision (a), and the board has issued, or failed to issue, findings pursuant to Section 19683. (d) This section is not intended to prevent an appointing power, manager, or supervisor from taking, directing others to take, recommending, or approving any personnel action or from taking or failing to take a personnel action with respect to any state employee or applicant for state employment if the appointing power, manager, or supervisor reasonably believes any action or inaction is justified on the basis of evidence separate and apart from the fact that the person has made a protected disclosure as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 8547.2.

(e) In any civil action or administrative proceeding, once it has
been demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that an activity protected by this article was a contributing factor in the alleged retaliation against a former, current, or prospective employee, the burden of proof shall be on the supervisor, manager, or appointing power to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in protected disclosures or refused an illegal order. If the supervisor, manager, or appointing power fails to meet this burden of proof in an adverse action against the employee in any administrative review, challenge, or adjudication in which retaliation has been demonstrated to be a contributing factor, the employee shall have a complete affirmative defense in the adverse action.

(f) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to diminish the
rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any other
federal or state law or under any employment contract or collective bargaining agreement.

8547.9. Notwithstanding Section 19572, if the State Personnel Board determines that there is a reasonable basis for an alleged
violation, or finds an actual violation of Section 8547.3 or 19683,
it shall transmit a copy of the investigative report to the State
Auditor. All working papers pertaining to the investigative report
shall be made available under subpoena in a civil action brought
under Section 19683.

8547.10. (a) A University of California employee, including an
officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a
written complaint with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer designated for that purpose by the regents, alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts for having made a protected disclosure, together with a sworn statement that the contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about. (b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a University of California employee, including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment in the county jail for up to a period of one year. Any university employee, including an officer or faculty member, who intentionally engages in that conduct shall also be subject to discipline by the university.

(c) In addition to all other penalties provided by law, any person
who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar acts against a university employee, including
an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for having made a protected disclosure shall be liable in an action for damages brought against him or her by the injured party. Punitive damages may be awarded by the court where the acts of the offending party are proven to be malicious. Where liability has been established, the injured party shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by law. However, any action for damages shall not be available to the injured party unless the injured party has first filed a complaint with the university officer identified pursuant to subdivision (a), and the university has failed to reach a decision regarding that complaint within the time limits established for that purpose by the regents.

(d) This section is not intended to prevent a manager or
supervisor from taking, directing others to take, recommending, or approving any personnel action or from taking or failing to take a personnel action with respect to any university employee, including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment if the manager or supervisor reasonably believes any action or inaction is justified on the basis of evidence separate and apart from the fact that the person has made a protected disclosure.

(e) In any civil action or administrative proceeding, once it has
been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity protected by this article was a contributing factor in the alleged retaliation against a former, current, or prospective employee, the burden of proof shall be on the supervisor, manager, or appointing power to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in protected disclosures or refused an illegal order. If the supervisor, manager, or appointing power fails to meet this burden of proof in an adverse action against the employee in any administrative review, challenge, or adjudication in which retaliation has been demonstrated to be a contributing factor, the employee shall have a complete affirmative defense in the adverse action.

8547.11. (a) A University of California employee, including an
officer or faculty member, may not directly or indirectly use or
attempt to use the official authority or influence of the employee
for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command any person for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to disclose to a University of California official, designated for that purpose by the regents, or the State Auditor matters within the scope of this article.

(b) For the purpose of subdivision (a), “use of official authority
or influence” includes promising to confer, or conferring, any
benefit; effecting, or threatening to effect, any reprisal; or taking
or directing others to take, or recommending, processing, or
approving, any personnel action, including, but not limited to,
appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation, suspension, or other disciplinary action.

(c) Any employee who violates subdivision (a) may be liable in an
action for civil damages brought against the employee by the offended party.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize an
individual to disclose information otherwise prohibited by or under law.

8547.12. (a) A California State University employee, including an
officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a
written complaint with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any other university officer designated for that purpose by the trustees, alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts for having made a protected disclosure, together with a sworn statement that the contents of the written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.

(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal,
retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a California
State University employee, including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment in the county jail for up to a period of one year. Any university employee, including an officer or faculty member, who intentionally engages in that conduct shall also be subject to discipline by the university.

(d) This section is not intended to prevent a manager or
supervisor from taking, directing others to take, recommending, or approving any personnel action, or from taking or failing to take a personnel action with respect to any university employee, including an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment if the manager or supervisor reasonably believes any action or inaction is justified on the basis of evidence separate and apart from the fact that the person has made a protected disclosure.

(g) If the provisions of this section are in conflict with the
provisions of a memorandum of understanding reached pursuant to Chapter 12 (commencing with Section 3560) of Division 4 of Title 1, the memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further legislative action.