Wabakken v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 801 F.3d 1143

David Wabakken, a California Dept. of Corrections lieutenant, received three adverse-action notices (2010–2011); the third led to his dismissal.
He appealed the disciplinary actions to the California State Personnel Board; an ALJ found the Dept. failed to prove charges in the first two notices, proved some lesser charges in the third, and recommended a lesser penalty than dismissal; the Board adopted the ALJ decision.
Wabakken separately filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint with the State Personnel Board, which dismissed it for failure to show causation; he also raised retaliation as an affirmative defense in the disciplinary proceedings.
Wabakken sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California’s Whistleblower Protection Act; defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing collateral estoppel/res judicata based on the State Personnel Board proceedings.
The district court granted summary judgment on collateral estoppel grounds, concluding the Personnel Board proceedings necessarily decided retaliation against Wabakken; Wabakken appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding State Personnel Board findings do not have preclusive effect on a subsequently filed court damages action under the Whistleblower Protection Act as interpreted by the California Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether collateral estoppel bars Wabakken’s whistleblower damages suit	Wabakken argued he could pursue the court claim because State Board findings shouldn’t preclude a court action	Defendants argued the Personnel Board proceedings necessarily decided retaliation against Wabakken, precluding relitigation	Reversed district court: collateral estoppel does not bar the court action under these circumstances
Whether the ALJ’s use of preponderance standard meant retaliation defense was decided against Wabakken	Wabakken contended the Board decision did not preclude his court claim regardless of the ALJ’s standard	Defendants argued ALJ’s application of preponderance showed Wabakken failed his initial burden, so the issue was decided	Court held even if ALJ rejected retaliation, State Bd. findings still do not have preclusive effect for the court damages remedy
Whether State Personnel Board findings are preclusive for damages actions under Cal. Gov’t Code § 8547.8	Wabakken relied on State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners: the legislature did not intend Personnel Board findings to preclude court damages claims	Defendants urged ordinary collateral estoppel principles should apply	Held for Wabakken: under State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners, § 8547.8(c) permits a court damages action after Board findings, regardless of their favorability, so no preclusive effect

State Bd. of Chiropractic Exam’rs v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.4th 963 (2009) (State Personnel Board findings not intended to have preclusive effect against employee pursuing court damages under whistleblower statute)
People v. Carter, 36 Cal.4th 1215 (2005) (elements and limits of collateral estoppel under California law)
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (purposes and limits of issue preclusion/collateral estoppel)
Cohen v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 686 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1982) (prima facie retaliation requires causal link between protected disclosure and adverse action)