Ross v. Cnty. of Riverside
36 Cal. App. 5th 580
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Christopher Ross, a Riverside County deputy district attorney in the Homicide Unit, uncovered exculpatory evidence (DNA results and recorded admissions by another suspect) and repeatedly told supervisors the office could not prove the charged defendant beyond a reasonable doubt and recommended dismissal. The office ultimately dismissed the case.
- Beginning mid‑2013 Ross experienced neurological symptoms and traveled out of state for testing; physicians advised reducing stress. He requested reassignment or no new cases during testing; supervisors initially denied then partially accommodated but later assigned new work and transferred him to the Filing Unit.
- The County requested medical documentation from the out‑of‑state clinic (which would not provide it); Ross offered a primary‑care note which was rejected. He was placed on paid administrative leave pending a County‑arranged fitness‑for‑duty exam; Ross later stopped working and the County deemed him to have abandoned his job.
- Ross sued for retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5 and for FEHA disability claims (discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, and failure to prevent disability discrimination). The trial court granted summary judgment for the County on 1102.5 and the FEHA disability claims, finding no protected disclosure and no disability.
- The Court of Appeal reviewed the summary judgment record in Ross’s favor and concluded triable issues of fact existed on (1) whether Ross engaged in protected whistleblower activity under Lab. Code § 1102.5 and (2) whether Ross had a physical disability under FEHA that limited the major life activity of working.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ross engaged in protected activity under Labor Code § 1102.5 | Ross disclosed information to supervisors that he reasonably believed showed unlawful/prosecutorial misconduct (coerced confession, exculpatory DNA, admissions by another suspect) and recommended dismissal | County argued Ross did not make disclosures that reasonably implicated violations of law and thus engaged in no protected activity | Reversed summary judgment: triable issue whether Ross’s disclosures were protected under § 1102.5 subdivision (b) |
| Whether Ross was a ‘‘physical disability’’ beneficiary under FEHA | Ross showed symptoms, ongoing out‑of‑state testing, periodic absences for appointments, physicians’ advice to avoid stress — evidence of a potentially disabling/perceived disabling impairment that limited working | County argued Ross could not show a physical impairment limiting major life activities or functional limitations requiring accommodation | Reversed summary judgment: triable issue whether Ross had a FEHA physical disability (temporary/potential/perceived) |
| Whether County failed to reasonably accommodate / engage in interactive process / prevent discrimination | Ross contends County demanded improper documentation, refused primary‑care note, transferred him, required fitness‑for‑duty exam and put him on leave instead of timely accommodation/interactive process | County defended by asserting Ross did not provide required documentation, could not perform essential job functions, and thus accommodation/interactive‑process claims fail | Reversed summary judgment as to these FEHA claims because triable issues of fact exist tied to disability question and County’s interactive/accommodation conduct |
| Whether appellate court should remand to a different county due to alleged conflicts (judicial disqualification) | Ross asked remand to San Bernardino due to perceived conflict involving named supervisors who are judges or former judges | County did not preserve that procedural route on appeal; remedy for judge disqualification is writ of mandate | Request declined: not the proper procedure on appeal; court will not order remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 (employee with reasonably based suspicions of illegal activity engages in protected whistleblowing)
- Manavian v. Department of Justice, 28 Cal.App.5th 1127 (framework for § 1102.5 retaliation—prima facie elements and burdens)
- Nosal‑Tabor v. Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, 239 Cal.App.4th 1224 (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc., 5 Cal.App.5th 570 (repeated/extended medical absences can limit the major life activity of working)
- American National Ins. Co. v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., 32 Cal.3d 603 (employer perception of a potentially disabling condition may satisfy disability definitions)
- Moore v. Regents of University of California, 248 Cal.App.4th 216 (recognition that certain FEHA claims of retaliation were not the law at specific earlier dates)
- Ennabe v. Manosa, 58 Cal.4th 697 (appellate rule to view summary judgment evidence in the plaintiff’s favor)