This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Modification: Ververka v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs

Lower Court

Napa County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

Victoria Wood
*Harris* case law that allows for some relief for a FEHA plaintiff even after a successful "same decision" defense does not extend to whistleblower retaliation claims.



Court

California Courts of Appeal 1DCA/1

Cite as

2024 DJDAR 4950

Published

Jun. 7, 2024

Filing Date

Jun. 5, 2024

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Affirmed

Case Fully Briefed

Jul. 25, 2023

Oral Argument

May 1, 2024


DONALD VERVERKA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant and Respondent.

 

No. A163571

(Napa County Super. Ct. No. 18CV001376)

California Court of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division One

Filed June 5, 2024

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

 

Trial Court: Napa County Superior Court

Trial Judge: Hon. Victoria D. Wood

Counsel:

Workplace Advocates, Barbara E. Cowan; Elhert Hicks, Allison Elhert for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Chris A. Knudsen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Fiel D. Tigno, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Joshua C. Irwin and John T. McGlothlin, Deputy Attorneys General for Defendant and Respondent.

 

THE COURT:

 

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on May 6, 2024, be modified as follows:

On pages 12-13: Delete the sentence beginning with "Likewise, here, we find it highly unlikely" on page 12 and ending with "based on nothing more than stray remarks" on page 13, and replace with the following sentence:

"Likewise, here, we find it highly unlikely the Legislature intended to impose liability on employers whenever a protected disclosure may have had minimal influence on their employment decisions, as this could easily lead to liability based on nothing more than passing remarks unrelated to the disputed employment decision."

There is no change in the judgment.

 

Humes, P.J.

 

#282664

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390