Taswell v. Regents of the University of California

Summary

Carl Taswell, M.D., who was working at the University of California (UC), Irvine, reported to his supervisor and the UC whistleblower hotline potential "serious violations" of safety and compliance protocols in the school's brain imaging center. A short time later, Taswell was placed on paid leave for entering "without authorization" a particular laboratory (to document violations), and his contract was not renewed. He filed an internal complaint for whistleblower retaliation, which ended in a finding adverse to Taswell. He then brought an action in civil court against the UC Regents alleging violations of, inter alia, the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Government Code Section 8547 et seq). Regents earned a summary judgment decision based, inter alia, on Taswell's failure to exhaust judicial remedies by failing to seek a writ petition to overturn the administrative ruling.
Reversed. Pursuant to Section 8547.10(a), a UC employee "may file a written [internal] complaint...alleging...retaliation for having made a protected disclosure." Subdivision (c) in the same code section provides that those found to have engaged in acts of retaliation "shall be liable in an action for damages," so long as an injured party "first filed a complaint with the university" as outlined in Subdivision (a). Importantly, "nothing in [subdivision (c)] is intended to prohibit the injured party from seeking a remedy if the university has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within 18 months." A university has not "satisfactorily addressed [a] complaint," the California Supreme Court has said in analyzing identical language from Section 8547.12 (pertaining to California State University employees), where it does not "address the complaint to [the complaining party's] satisfaction." Runyon v. Board of Trustees of California State University. In other words, where an employee has "complied with [a university's] internal complaint...requirements and received an adverse decision...[he] may bring a civil action for damages." Here, then, as Taswell's complaint culminated in an adverse administrative decision, that complaint "was not satisfactorily addressed from [Taswell'ss] perspective," and he was authorized under Section 8547.10 to seek civil damages, whether or not he exhausted other judicial remedies such as a writ petition.

— Brian Cardile