Andersson v. Newhall School District CA2/3
B315894M
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 7, 2023Background
- Charlene Andersson, a longtime elementary teacher, discovered a misfiled IEP for student B.U. showing he had been entitled to special-education services; she alleges Principal Sorenson‑Howe concealed the IEP and delayed services.
- Andersson told Assistant Superintendent Michelle Morse about the IEP issue in early 2018 and later (April 2018) filed a special-education complaint with the California Department of Education (CDE).
- Multiple parents and teachers had contemporaneous complaints about Andersson’s conduct; the District placed Andersson on paid administrative leave (Feb. 28, 2018) while investigating.
- While on leave, Andersson received a Notice of Unsatisfactory Performance and a negative performance review in August 2018 listing numerous incidents reported by parents, staff, and specialists.
- An independent investigation found no evidence of retaliatory discipline or that Sorenson‑Howe intentionally concealed B.U.’s IEP. The trial court granted summary adjudication for the defendants; on appeal the Supreme Court’s decision in Kolla’s altered the law on whether disclosures already known to an employer are protected.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Andersson’s reports were protected disclosures under Labor Code §1102.5 | Andersson: her reports about the concealed/delayed IEP (and later CDE complaint) were protected even if the District already knew. | Defendants: the reports concerned known or resolved matters and/or were personnel complaints, not protected whistleblowing. | Kolla’s governs: a disclosure can be protected even if the recipient already knew. Court concluded Andersson made at least one protected disclosure (CDE) and the trial court erred to the extent it denied protection for that reason. |
| Causation / whether asserted acts were adverse employment actions | Andersson: parking‑lot confrontation, placement on leave, and subsequent Notice/review were retaliatory adverse actions. | Defendants: some acts (leave) were unpled; no evidence linking disclosures to Sorenson‑Howe’s parking‑lot conduct; multiple independent complaints already existed. | Court: Andersson failed to show a causal link for the parking‑lot incident; placement on leave was not a pleaded adverse act; temporal proximity could support causation for the Notice/review but is not dispositive. |
| Employer’s affirmative defense under Labor Code §1102.6 (clear and convincing proof) | Andersson: District’s proffered reasons were pretextual and motivated by retaliation. | Defendants: presented clear and convincing undisputed evidence of numerous prior complaints, coaching, and documented incidents that would justify the negative review independent of any disclosure. | Held: District met its heavy §1102.6 burden; undisputed evidence shows it would have issued the negative review for legitimate, independent reasons; summary adjudication affirmed on that ground. |
| Education Code retaliation and IIED/NIED tort claims | Andersson: trial court erred in dismissing these claims and statutes support them; Sorenson‑Howe’s conduct was extreme/outrageous and a duty not to retaliate existed. | Defendants: Education Code claim fails; torts against a public entity require statutory authorization; IIED/NIED elements not shown. | Held: Andersson forfeited appellate review of the Education Code and IIED/NIED claims by failing to brief elements/authorities and provide record citations; those rulings affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Garcia‑Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc., 14 Cal.5th 719 (Cal. 2023) (disclosure may be protected under §1102.5 even if recipient already knows of the violation)
- Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 12 Cal.5th 703 (Cal. 2022) (employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence the same action would have occurred absent protected activity under §1102.6)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (Cal. 2001) (summary judgment framework and burdens)
- Vatalaro v. County of Sacramento, 79 Cal.App.5th 367 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (affirming summary judgment where undisputed evidence supported employer’s legitimate reasons under §1102.6)
- Mize‑Kurzman v. Marin Community College Dist., 202 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (prior authority holding disclosures of already‑known facts were not protected; disapproved by Kolla’s)