105 Cal.App.5th 580
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Blake Wentworth, an assistant professor at UC Berkeley, faced multiple student complaints alleging unprofessional conduct and sexual harassment.
- Wentworth disclosed his bipolar II diagnosis following work and personal issues, including hospitalization for a suicide attempt.
- The university offered various disability accommodations; Wentworth only sought tenure clock stoppage for research limitations.
- Media coverage ensued after leaks of a faculty letter about complaints, and details regarding Wentworth's discipline and medical leave were shared at department meetings.
- Wentworth was ultimately denied reappointment and terminated; he sued UC Regents asserting multiple claims under FEHA and the Information Practices Act (IPA).
- The trial court dismissed most claims via summary adjudication, denied some discovery and retrial requests, and denied Wentworth's request for attorney’s fees; Wentworth appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to Accommodate/Interactive Process | Regents failed to engage/offer reasonable accommodation for his disability; should have accommodated absences and permitted research leave. | Regents engaged in an interactive process and offered clock stoppage; no obligation to excuse essential job duties or offer preferred accommodations. | No prejudicial error; Regents met obligations; summary adjudication affirmed. |
| Invasion of Privacy (IPA and Constitution) | Regents disclosed confidential employment and medical info to the media and at meetings, violating his privacy rights. | Disclosed info was not protected, already public, or too trivial; statute of limitations also applies. | Triable issues exist as to IPA claims; summary adjudication reversed on privacy claim. |
| Discovery Requests (re Media Disclosures) | Trial court erred by denying discovery of journalism school communications to uncover source(s) of media leaks. | Requests are overbroad, implicate reporter’s privilege, and not properly narrowed to non-journalist sources. | No abuse of discretion; privilege applies and alternative sources not exhausted; denial affirmed. |
| Retrial on Personnel File Cause of Action | Jury failed to answer personnel file claims due to verdict form error; retrial required. | Plaintiff forfeited the claim by not objecting before discharge of jury. | Plaintiff forfeited; trial court acted within discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Attorney’s Fees and Costs | Entitled due to catalyst theory—lawsuit prompted compliance and production of files. | Did not prevail at trial, and the production was not catalyzed or sufficiently significant for a fee award. | Ruling reversed and remanded for redetermination depending on outcome of revived invasion of privacy claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. County of San Joaquin, 38 Cal.App.5th 1 (summary judgment burdens for disability claims)
- Nealy v. City of Santa Monica, 234 Cal.App.4th 359 (reasonable accommodation cannot excuse essential job functions)
- King v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 152 Cal.App.4th 426 (interactive process obligations for both parties)
- Mitchell v. Superior Court, 37 Cal.3d 268 (California’s reporter’s privilege in civil discovery)
- Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.4th 1072 (IPA disclosure liability and discovery limits)
- Taylor v. Nabors Drilling USA, LP, 222 Cal.App.4th 1228 (forfeiture from failure to object to jury verdict form)
- Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 140 (prevailing party for attorney’s fees; pragmatic approach)