Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino
E065672
| Cal. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 2017Background
- Mary Anna Whitehall, a San Bernardino County social worker (J/D writer), learned supervisors withheld and provided altered photographs and withheld a police report in a juvenile dependency case involving a suspicious infant death and abused siblings.
- Whitehall gave the assigned deputy county counsel a disk with the original photographs, was removed from the case, and, with two other social workers, filed a Welfare & Institutions Code section 388 petition/declaration to inform the juvenile court about the alleged manipulation of evidence.
- Six days after filing the court submission, Whitehall was placed on administrative leave pending investigation for disclosure of confidential information; the County later decided to terminate her, and she resigned to avoid firing.
- Whitehall sued the County for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5. The County filed an anti-SLAPP special motion to strike under Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16, which the trial court denied; the County appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, rejecting the County's contentions that governmental immunity, privilege, lack of adverse action, or Whitehall's alleged disclosure barred her claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the complaint arises from protected petitioning/speech | Whitehall argues her disclosure to the juvenile court was protected petitioning about public-interest wrongdoing | County contends the action arises from its protected petitioning/investigative activity and thus is subject to anti-SLAPP | Court observed the County's employment act (placing on leave/intent to fire) did not itself arise from protected petitioning; but because parties didn't challenge the trial court's first-prong finding, the court proceeded to second prong |
| Whether plaintiff showed a probability of prevailing on whistleblower claim | Whitehall: temporal proximity, County admitted intent to fire, disclosure to court and county counsel was appropriate and privileged when exposing fraud | County: governmental immunity and privileges (Gov. Code §§ 820.2, 821.6, 815.2) bar liability; investigation and communications were privileged; no adverse action; unclean hands | Court held Whitehall met the low threshold of probability: immunity and cited privileges did not bar claims against the public entity for whistleblower-based termination; administrative leave and removal from case were adverse; privilege/un-clean-hands defenses insufficient |
| Whether County's asserted official-acts privileges preclude liability | Whitehall: no privilege to cover up fraud on the court; disclosure to counsel and court was proper and necessary | County: supervisors' discretionary authority and investigatory/ litigation privileges shield actions and communications | Court held no cited privilege authorizes presentation of falsified evidence or retaliation for disclosing a possible fraud on the court; County not immune here |
| Whether plaintiff had unclean hands (disclosure of confidential info) | Whitehall: disclosures were to counsel (privileged) and to the juvenile court (confidential court files), made to remedy improper conduct | County: Whitehall improperly disclosed confidential information, so equitable defense applies | Court held unclean-hands cannot defeat a statutory public-policy whistleblower claim; disclosures here were privileged/authorized in context and do not bar relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal.4th 33 (Cal. 2006) (defines SLAPP and anti-SLAPP context)
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (Cal. 2002) (two-step anti-SLAPP framework and minimal-merit standard)
- Park v. Board of Trustees of California State University, 2 Cal.5th 1057 (Cal. 2017) (analyzing what it means for a claim to "arise from" protected activity)
- Yanowitz v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028 (Cal. 2005) (adverse employment action standard: material effect on terms, conditions, or privileges)
- Fahlen v. Sutter Central Valley Hospitals, 58 Cal.4th 655 (Cal. 2014) (whistleblower disclosures protected when aimed at remedying improper government activity)
- Nam v. Regents of University of California, 1 Cal.App.5th 1176 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (anti-SLAPP should not enable employers to retaliate by hiding behind protected activity)