36 Cal.App.5th 580
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Christopher Ross, a Riverside County deputy district attorney in the Homicide Unit, discovered and disclosed exculpatory evidence (DNA results and recorded phone calls implicating another suspect) and recommended dismissing a murder prosecution.
- Ross also underwent out-of-state medical testing in 2013 for possible neurological/autoimmune conditions, requiring intermittent absences and doctors' advice to avoid work stress; he sought limited accommodations (no new cases, reassignment) during testing.
- Supervisors sought medical documentation from the out-of-state clinic (which would not provide it); Ross offered primary care documentation but County insisted on specialist records, then transferred him to the Filing Unit and placed him on paid administrative leave pending a fitness-for-duty exam.
- Ross stopped working, sent correspondence claiming constructive termination, and the County later deemed him to have abandoned his job; he sued in 2014 alleging violations of Labor Code § 1102.5 and FEHA (disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the interactive process, failure to prevent discrimination).
- The trial court granted County summary judgment, finding Ross did not engage in protected whistleblower activity under § 1102.5 and was not disabled under FEHA; Ross appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ross engaged in activity protected by Labor Code § 1102.5 (disclosure of suspected unlawful activity) | Ross argued his disclosures to supervisors—that prosecution lacked probable cause and continued prosecution violated due process and prosecutorial duties—are protected because he reasonably believed laws/ethical rules were violated | County argued Ross did not make disclosures that reasonably identified a violation of statute/regulation and therefore did not engage in protected activity | Reversed: triable issue exists whether Ross reasonably believed and disclosed unlawful activity; summary judgment improper on § 1102.5 claim |
| Whether Ross is a ‘‘physical disability’’ class member under FEHA | Ross argued his ongoing testing, periodic absences, doctors' advice to avoid stress, and the County's treatment show a potentially disabling or perceived disability limiting the major life activity of working | County argued Ross could not show functional limitations or a disability that limited major life activities and thus could not prove FEHA claims | Reversed: triable issue whether Ross had (actual, potential, or perceived) physical disability limiting working; summary judgment improper on FEHA claims |
| Whether County failed to reasonably accommodate and failed to engage in the interactive process | Ross argued County refused reasonable accommodations (insisted on specific clinic records, reassigned him, placed him on leave) and did not engage in a good‑faith interactive process | County argued Ross did not produce required medical proof of limitations, did not engage in good faith, and thus accommodation/interactive-process claims fail | Reversed: triable issues exist on accommodation and interactive-process claims because factual disputes remain regarding limitations, documentation requests, and County's responses |
| Request to transfer case venue due to alleged judicial conflicts involving former County prosecutors | Ross requested remand to San Bernardino County because of alleged conflicts (not preserved below) | County opposed; procedural mechanism for judge disqualification is writ of mandate, not part of this appeal | Denied: court declined relief; noted proper remedy is a timely writ petition and the request was not properly preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Ennabe v. Manosa, 58 Cal.4th 697 (review standard for summary judgment on appeal)
- Green v. Ralee Eng’g Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 (employee protected when disclosing reasonably based suspicions of illegal activity)
- Manavian v. Dep’t of Justice, 28 Cal.App.5th 1127 (elements of § 1102.5 retaliation claim)
- Nosal‑Tabor v. Sharp Chula Vista Med. Ctr., 239 Cal.App.4th 1224 (appellate independent review of summary judgment)
- Fitzgerald v. El Dorado County, 94 F. Supp. 3d 1155 (an employee must point to legal foundation for suspicion under § 1102.5)
- Soria v. Univision Radio Los Angeles, Inc., 5 Cal.App.5th 570 (repeated/extended medical absences can limit major life activity of working)
- American Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Fair Emp’t & Hous. Com., 32 Cal.3d 603 (employer perception of potential future disability can trigger protections)