Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Community College District
202 Cal. App. 4th 832
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Pamela Mize-Kurzman sues Marin Community College District relatives (board) alleging retaliation under California whistleblower laws (Labor Code 1102.5; Education Code 87160 et seq.).
- Claims based on four alleged disclosures in 2006-2007 about hiring, grant funds, student registrations, and citizenship data; plaintiff asserts disclosures were protected and made in good faith to remedy illegal activity.
- District allegedly retaliated by demotion, reassignments, and discipline culminating in administrative leave and a later trial disposition favorable to district.
- Jury trial in 2009 found for defendants on all whistleblower claims; plaintiff appeals asserting instructional errors and evidentiary rulings.
- Court reverses on three instructional errors, remands for new trial; limited treatment of retirement-earnings evidence and mitigation issues remains for retrial.
- Court addresses admissibility of plaintiff’s retirement eligibility and potential impact on damages, ultimately remanding in light of instructional errors and evidentiary rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-limitations were correct in California whistleblower instructions | Mize-Kurzman argues special Instructions 2-3 misapply federal limits | District argues federal standards guide California statute interpretations | Erroneous; reversal and remand necessary |
| Effect of ‘debatable policy matters’ limitation on disclosures | Limit wrongly excludes lawful disclosures about statutory violations | Limitation supported by White and related cases | Error; requires reversal and retrial |
| Protected disclosure when disclosed to a supervisor | Disclosures to White/ Martinez could be protected if not the wrongdoer | Some disclosures to supervisors could be unprotected | Error to categorically exclude disclosures to supervisor; remand |
| Evidence and instruction on retirement to mitigate damages | Retirement eligibility/income improperly used to reduce damages | Retirement evidence relevant to mitigation | Admissibility/instructions errors; remand for retrial on damages |
| Whether jury could consider retirement to reduce damages without proper guidance | No proper mitigation framework given; risk of improper double recovery | Mitigation framework permissible under Parker and related cases | Remand for retrial; improper to rely on retirement evidence without correct guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (public employee speech not insulated by First Amendment when speaking as part of official duties)
- Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, 263 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (debate over policy matters; broad interpretation of disclosures under WPA)
- White v. Department of the Air Force, 391 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (debatable policy matters limit on protected disclosures under federal WPA)
- Colores v. Board of Trustees, 105 Cal.App.4th 1293 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (employee protected when reporting to supervisor not involved in wrongdoing)