Source: https://calemploymentlawupdate.proskauer.com/2012/03/community-college-employee-is-entitled-to-new-trial-on-whistleblower-claims/
Timestamp: 2019-06-20 16:15:20
Document Index: 663376472

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1102', '§ 998', '§ 1102', '§ 132', '§ 218', '§ 226']

Community College Employee Is Entitled To New Trial On Whistleblower Claims | California Employment Law Update
Home > Employment Law Notes > Community College Employee Is Entitled To New Trial On Whistleblower Claims
Community College Employee Is Entitled To New Trial On Whistleblower Claims
By Tony Oncidi on March 1, 2012 Posted in Employment Law Notes, Retaliation, Whistleblowers
Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Cmty. Coll. Dist., 202 Cal. App. 4th 832 (2012)
Pamela Mize-Kurzman, who had been promoted to Dean of Enrollment Services as part of a settlement of a previous lawsuit against the district, claimed the district retaliated against her for disclosing what she believed to be violations of the law or regulations to various individuals and entities. Mize-Kurzman went to trial against the district on claims alleging violation of the whistleblower protection provisions codified in Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 and the Education Code. The jury deliberated two days before finding against Mize-Kurzman on all of her claims. In this appeal, Mize-Kurzman asserted instructional error on the part of the trial court. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial after concluding the trial court had erroneously instructed the jury. Specifically, the Court held the trial court had erroneously instructed the jury that a plaintiff must prove that any disclosure was made in good faith and for the public good and not for personal reasons, holding that “it may often be the case that a personal agenda or animus towards a supervisor or other employees will be one of several considerations motivating the employee whistleblower to make a disclosure regarding conduct that the employee also reasonably believes violates a statute or rule or constitutes misconduct.” The Court also held that it was error to instruct the jury that “debatable differences of opinion concerning policy matters are not protected disclosures” and “information passed along to a supervisor in the normal course of duties is not a protected disclosure.” However, the Court found no error in the instructions that “reporting publicly known facts is not a protected disclosure” and “efforts to determine if a practice violates the law are not protected disclosures.” The Court did find error in the trial court’s admission of evidence of Mize-Kurzman’s retirement eligibility and income with respect to the issue of mitigation of her damages. See also Chaaban v. Wet Seal, Inc., 203 Cal. App. 4th 49 (2012) (prevailing party that served Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998 may recover fees paid to opposing party’s expert witness).
Tags: Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5, jury instructions, normal course of duties, protected disclosure, retaliation, whistleblower
Select Topic#MeTooADAADEAAffirmative ActionAge discriminationAnti-SLAPPArbitration AgreementsArticlesAttorney's FeesBackground InvestigationsBonus CompensationBreach of ContractCalifornia Labor & Employment LawCalifornia Labor CodeCalifornia Labor Code Section 202California Labor Code Section 203Cartwright ActCFRAClass ActionsClient AlertsCollective BargainingCommission PaymentsComputer and Internet UseComputer Fraud and Abuse ActConstructive DischargeDay LaborersDefamationDisabilityDiscriminationDrug PoliciesE-VerifyEconomic Espionage ActEEOCEmployee BenefitsEmployee DisciplineEmployee HandbooksEmployer Liability for Worker's ActionsEmployment ApplicationsEmployment ContractsEmployment Law NotesEmployment PoliciesEmployment VerificationEqual Pay ActERISAExempt EmployeesExpense ReimbursementFAAFCAFCRAFederal JurisdictionFEHAField Operations HandbookFLSAFMLAForm I-9Gender discriminationGender IdentityHarassmentHiringIllness and Injury Prevention ProgramImmigrationIndependent ContractorsInsuranceJoint EmployerJurisdictionJury verdictsKin CareLabor Code § 132Labor Code § 218.5Labor Code § 226Labor Code Section 351Leaves of AbsenceLiability for Employee's Actions Outside the WorkplaceMeal Periods and Rest BreaksMilitary LeaveMinimum WageNew and Proposed Laws and LegislationNewsNLRANon-Competition CovenantsOff-the-clock IssuesOn-callOvertimePAGAPaid Sick LeavePay equityPayrollPDAPensionsPre-Employment Medical ExaminationsPregnancy LeavePrivacyPublic EmploymentReasonable AccommodationRelease AgreementsReligionReporting RequirementsResident EmployeesRetaliationRetirementSan FranciscoSerious Health ConditionsSettlementSexual HarassmentSexual orientation discriminationSherman Antitrust ActSovereign ImmunitySupreme CourtTaxThird Party LiabilityTitle VIITortious interference with contractTrade SecretsU.S. Department of LaborUncategorizedUnfair CompetitionUnion IssuesVacation or PTOVerdictWage and HourWage StatementsWARN ActWhistleblowersWorkers CompensationWorkplace SafetyWorkplace ViolenceWrongful Termination
Select Month	June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 October 2016 September 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 January 2016 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 January 2009 November 2008 September 2008 July 2008 May 2008 March 2008 January 2008 November 2007 September 2007 July 2007 May 2007 March 2007 January 2007 October 2006 August 2006 July 2006 April 2006 January 2006 December 2005 October 2005 July 2005 May 2005 March 2005 January 2005 September 2004 July 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 January 2004 November 2003 August 2003 June 2003 April 2003 February 2003 December 2002 November 2002 September 2002 July 2002
Ah, It’s Bill Passing Season in California – and No Employer is Safe!
May 2019 California Employment Law Notes
California Bill Aims to Prohibit Employers from Discriminating on Basis of Hairstyle
9th Circuit Applies Strict Independent Contractor Test, Dynamex, Retroactively
California Jury Awards $11 Million In Latest Blockbuster Sexual Harassment Verdict
Join Us for a Webinar on Sexual Harassment Claims and Mandatory Arbitration Agreements