18 Cal.5th 33
Cal.2025Background
- Wanda Brown served as the elected treasurer for the City of Inglewood since 1987.
- In 2019-2020, Brown raised concerns about financial mismanagement by city officials, alleging illegal overpayments.
- She claimed to suffer various retaliatory actions by the City of Inglewood and its officials after making these allegations.
- Brown filed a lawsuit under California's whistleblower protection statute, Labor Code § 1102.5, asserting unlawful retaliation.
- The trial court denied the defendants' anti-SLAPP motion and allowed Brown's claim to proceed, declining to decide whether she was an "employee" under the statute.
- The Court of Appeal reversed as to individual defendants, finding that as an elected official, Brown was not an "employee" under § 1102.5; the California Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether elected officials are "employees" entitled to whistleblower protection under Labor Code § 1102.5 | Brown argued she was an employee because she received a salary, W-2s, and had job duties/salary set by the city | Defendants argued elected officials are representatives of the public, not employees, and statute's language and legislative history exclude elected officials | Elected officials are not "employees" under § 1102.5 and cannot bring claims under this statute |
| Whether statutory language/legislative intent includes elected officials as "employees" | Brown argued the open-ended definition in § 1106 covers anyone employed by a city, including elected officials | Defendants noted other statutes expressly include/exclude elected officials and § 1106 omits them; legislative history aimed to protect rank-and-file, not elected officials | Statutory language and legislative history show intent to exclude elected officials |
| Applicability of the common law test for employment status to this context | Brown asserted that common law control tests should define who is an employee under Labor Code § 1102.5 | Defendants countered that the test is inapplicable; the statutory scheme and context control | Common law test is not applicable in this statutory context |
| Public policy justification for including/excluding elected officials from § 1102.5 | Brown argued all workers, including elected officials, deserve whistleblower protections; excluding them weakens enforcement | Defendants argued that policy risks including legislative/judicial oversight of political/legislative acts and elected officials answer to voters | Treating elected officials differently is reasonable and consistent with legislative choices |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (describes the federal context for whistleblower protections)
- Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 12 Cal.5th 703 (Cal. 2022) (explains whistleblower protections under Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5)
- Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 (Cal. 1998) (discusses scope and policy of whistleblower laws)
- City of Montebello v. Vasquez, 1 Cal.5th 409 (Cal. 2016) (anti-SLAPP protections for acts by public officials)
- Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, 11 Cal.5th 995 (Cal. 2021) (anti-SLAPP framework in employment disputes)
- Campbell v. Regents of University of California, 35 Cal.4th 311 (Cal. 2005) (legislature’s intent regarding the inclusion of public employees in whistleblower statutes)
- Shoemaker v. Myers, 52 Cal.3d 1 (Cal. 1990) (statutory context for public employee whistleblower protections)
- Miklosy v. Regents of University of California, 44 Cal.4th 876 (Cal. 2008) (defines protected classes in government whistleblower statutes)
- S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations, 48 Cal.3d 341 (Cal. 1989) (common law vs statutory tests for employment status)