2016 ANNUAL REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE 

WHISTLEBLOWER 
RETALIATION COMPLAINTS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Prepared by 
 
State Personnel Board 
801 Capitol Mall 
Sacramento, CA 95814 
 
Kimiko Burton, President 
Lauri Shanahan, Vice President 
Richard Costigan, CalPERS Representative 
Maeley Tom, Member 
Patricia Clarey, Member 

Suzanne M. Ambrose, Executive Officer 

 

 

 

 

 
 
July 2017 

  

 

 
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE 
COMPLAINTS OF RETALIATION FOR THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY 
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES (WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION) 
 
July 31, 2017 
 
Introduction 
 
Government Code section 19683, subdivision (f) provides, “In order for the Governor and the Legislature to determine the need to continue or modify state personnel procedures as they relate to the investigations of reprisals or retaliation for the disclosure of information by public employees, the State Personnel Board, by June 30 of each year1, shall submit a report to the Governor and the Legislature regarding complaints filed, hearings held, and legal actions taken pursuant to this section.”  This report is prepared by the State Personnel Board (SPB) for the calendar year of January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016. 
1 Six reports were produced between 1987 and 1992.  In 1992, Chapter 710 legislation (Government Code section 7550.5) instituted a moratorium on most reports to the Legislature.  The moratorium was renewed in 1994 and 1996, and became inoperative on October 1, 1999.  After the moratorium was repealed as of January 1, 2000, Whistleblower Retaliation Reports have been produced on an annual basis beginning with the calendar year 2000.  

Background 
 
Protection for state employees from retaliation for having reported improper governmental activities was first provided in 1985.  At that time, the SPB was assigned responsibility for investigation of complaints of whistleblower retaliation.   
 
Amendments to the whistleblower retaliation protections were made in 1987, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.  In 2002, SPB adopted regulations to implement the whistleblower retaliation laws.   
 
Effective March 8, 2006, the SPB’s regulations were revised to include the requirement that the Executive Officer refer cases for investigation or schedule an informal hearing before an administrative law judge.  Effective August 18, 2010, the SPB’s regulations concerning the whistleblower statutes were revised as part of a broader revision to SPB’s regulations.  
 
Information 
 
Whistleblowing is defined as either disclosing information that an employee or applicant of a state agency, a community college, the California Supreme Court, a court of appeal, a superior court, or the Administrative Office of the Courts, reasonably believes is evidence of an improper governmental activity, or refusing to obey an illegal order or directive.   
 
Three agencies play major roles in investigating whistleblower retaliation, the California State Auditor (CSA), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the SPB. 
 
CSA accepts complaints in reference to improper governmental activities.  CSA is the investigative agency that has jurisdiction to investigate the underlying improper governmental activity.   
 
OIG’s specific responsibility in whistleblower retaliation complaints is to investigate complaints of retaliation against those who report misconduct on the part of state correctional agencies and employees.  OIG may, with the approval of the complaining employee, forward its investigative findings to the SPB for the purpose of bringing disciplinary action against an employee who is found to have violated the retaliation provisions when the department fails to do so.  As an independent agency, OIG reports to the Governor.  OIG also provides impartial analysis and policy recommendations to the Governor, the Legislature, and correctional administrators.    
 
SPB is the adjudicatory body that hears and decides whistleblower retaliation complaints filed by state civil service or community college employees; employees of the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, Superior Courts, or the Administrative Office of the Courts; or applicants, whom have alleged being subjected to an improper personnel action for disclosing improper governmental activity or refusing to obey an illegal order or directive. 
 
The SPB has jurisdiction in whistleblower retaliation cases when all of the requirements listed below are met: 
 
. A state or community college applicant or employee or employee of the Supreme Court, Courts of Appeal, Superior Courts, or the Administrative Office of the Courts files the complaint.  “Employee” includes any former employee who met the above criteria during his or her employment. 

. The complaint states a prima facie case of retaliation. 

. The complaint is filed within one year of the most recent act of reprisal. 

. The names and business addresses of each individual and entity alleged to have committed reprisal or retaliatory acts are provided. 

. The complainant provides a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, that the contents of the complaint are true. 

 
SPB does not accept filed complaints when any of the above requirements are not met or the SPB does not have jurisdiction over the employing entity (e.g. University of California, California State University). 
 
Complaint Activity 
 
In calendar year 2016, 55 whistleblower retaliation complaints were filed with the SPB.  This is nearly identical to calendar year 2015, when the SPB received 53 whistleblower retaliation complaints.  Of the 55 complaints filed in 2016, 16 of those complaints were accepted.     
Of the 16 cases accepted, 11 were initially referred to the informal hearing process.  Six of these cases were dismissed following an informal hearing and 4 were withdrawn prior to the informal hearing.  One of the cases referred to informal hearing was granted and an evidentiary hearing was conducted.  Four cases, including the case that was granted following the informal hearing, were dismissed following an evidentiary hearing and one case was settled prior to an evidentiary hearing.   
 
SPB Whistleblower Retaliation Complaints Activity Report 
(January 2016 – December 2016) 
Total  
Filed 
 Appeals 
Accepted  
 Appeals Not  
Accepted2 
 
55 
 16 
 39 

2 SPB does not accept filed appeals when:  (a) The complaint fails to state a prima facie case of retaliation; (b) the complaint is not filed within one year of the most recent act of reprisal; (c) the complaint is not signed under penalty of perjury; or (d) the SPB does not have jurisdiction over the employing entity (e.g. University of California, California State University). 

 

I. Disposition of Whistleblower Complaints Administered within the Informal Hearing Process 

 
Granted 
 Dismissed 
 Withdrawn 
 
1 
 6 
 4 

 
 
II. Disposition of Whistleblower Complaints Administered within the Evidentiary Hearing Process 

 
Granted 
 Dismissed 
 Settled 
 
0 
 4 
 1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III. Comparison of Whistleblower Appeals filed each Year 

 

 

 Number 
 Appeal Date 
 Case Status 
 Department 
 Consolidated3 
 RDAT4 
 Informal/Evidentiary Hearing 
 
1 
 16-0003W 
 1/4/2016 
 Closed - Withdrawn 
 CDCR 
   
 No 

2 
 16-0043W 
 1/13/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
   
 Yes 

3 
 16-0164W 
 1/28/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 Lottery Commission 
   
 Yes 

4 
 16-0165W 
 2/3/2016 
 Closed - Notice of Findings (Granted) 
 DOT 
   
 Yes 
 Informal 
 
5 
 16-0165WE 
 6/28/2016 
 Closed - Board Resolution (Dismissed) 
 DOT 
   
 Yes 
 Evidentiary 
 
6 
 16-0192W 
 2/8/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 DDS 
   
 Yes 

7 
 16-0233W 
 2/18/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 ALRB 
   
 Yes 

8 
 16-0275WEK 
 2/24/2016 
 Closed - Board Resolution (Dismissed) 
 EDD 
 16-0275WEK (AA) 
 Yes 
 Evidentiary 
 
9 
 16-0318W 
 3/3/2016 
 Closed - No Jurisdiction 
 CDSS 
  
 Yes 

 
 Number 
 Appeal Date 
 Case Status 
 Department 
 Consolidated3 
 RDAT4 
 Informal/Evidentiary Hearing 
 
10 
 16-0334W 
 3/4/2016 
 Closed - Withdrawn 
 DPH 
  
 No 

11 
 16-0341W 
 3/7/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 

12 
 16-0509W 
 3/24/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 DSH 
  
 Yes 

13 
 16-0525WEK 
 3/28/2016 
 Closed - Board Resolution (Dismissed) 
 HCS 
 16-0525WEK (AA) 
 Yes 
 Evidentiary 
 
14 
 16-0554WEK 
 4/4/2016 
 Closed - Stipulated Settlement Agreement 
 DOT 
 16-0554WEK (AA) 
 Yes 

15 
 16-0571W 
 4/6/2016 
 Closed – No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 

16 
 16-0610W 
 4/6/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 BOE 
  
 No 

17 
 16-0699W 
 4/21/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 DWR 
  
 No 

18 
 16-0707W 
 4/22/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 

19 
 16-0736W 
 4/25/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 No 

20 
 16-0753W 
 4/26/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 

 
 Number 
 Appeal Date 
 Case Status 
 Department 
 Consolidated3 
 RDAT4 
 Informal/Evidentiary Hearing 
 
21 
 16-0769W 
 4/28/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 DSH 
  
 Yes 

22 
 16-0790W 
 5/2/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 DDS 
  
 Yes 

23 
 16-0792W 
 4/29/2016 
 Closed – No Prima Facie Case 
 SCIF 
  
 Yes 

24 
 16-0844W 
 5/10/2016 
 Closed – Notice of Findings (Dismissed) 
 CDCR/CCHCS 
  
 Yes 
 Informal 
 
25 
 16-0852W 
 5/11/2016 
 Closed - No Jurisdiction 
 CSU 
  
 No 

26 
 16-0870W 
 5/16/2016 
 Closed - Withdrawn 
 UIAB 
  
 Yes 

27 
 16-1081W 
 6/13/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 

28 
 16-1112W 
 6/15/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 

29 
 16-1227W 
 6/28/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 DOT 
  
 No 

30 
 16-1237WEK 
 7/1/2016 
 Closed - Discretionary 
 DOT 
  
 No 

31 
 16-1250W 
 7/5/2016 
 Closed - Withdrawn 
 DOT 
  
 No 

 
 Number 
 Appeal Date 
 Case Status 
 Department 
 Consolidated3 
 RDAT4 
 Informal/Evidentiary Hearing 
 
32 
 16-1341W 
 7/19/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 DOT 
  
 No 

33 
 16-1342W 
 7/19/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 

34 
 16-1377W 
 7/25/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 No 

35 
 16-1413W 
 7/29/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CalFire 
  
 No 

36 
 16-1479W 
 8/8/2016 
 Closed – Notice of Findings (Dismissed) 
 CHP 
  
 No 
 Informal 
 
37 
 16-1508W 
 8/10/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 EDD 
  
 Yes 

38 
 16-1712W 
 9/6/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 DWR 
  
 No 

39 
 16-1787W 
 9/16/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 DSH 
  
 Yes 

40 
 16-1793W 
 9/19/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 SCIF 
  
 No 

41 
 16-1810W 
 9/21/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR/CCHCS 
  
 Yes 

42 
 16-1843W 
 9/27/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 DOJ 
  
 No 

 
 Number 
 Appeal Date 
 Case Status 
 Department 
 Consolidated3 
 RDAT4 
 Informal/Evidentiary Hearing 
 
43 
 16-1877W 
 9/29/2016 
 Closed - Withdrawn 
 DBO 
  
 Yes 

44 
 16-1897W 
 10/4/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CalVet 
  
 Yes 

45 
 16-1989W 
 10/17/2016 
 Closed - Withdrawn 
 CDCR/CCHCS 
  
 Yes 

46 
 16-2006W 
 10/19/2016 
 Closed - Withdrawn 
 DOT 
  
 Yes 

47 
 16-2016W 
 10/20/2016 
 Closed – Notice of Findings (Dismissed) 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 
 Informal 
 
48 
 16-2082W 
 11/1/2016 
 Closed – Notice of Findings (Dismissed) 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 
 Informal 
 
49 
 16-2132W 
 11/1/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDSS 
  
 Yes 

50 
 16-2174W 
 11/15/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 

51 
 16-2227W 
 11/21/2016 
 Closed – Notice of Findings (Dismissed) 
 DSH 
  
 No 
 Informal 
 
52 
 16-2231W 
 11/21/2016 
 Closed – No Prima Facie Case 
 DSH 
  
 No 

53 
 16-2250W 
 11/23/2016 
 Closed - No Prima Facie Case 
 ABC 
  
 Yes 

 
 Number 
 Appeal Date 
 Case Status 
 Department 
 Consolidated3 
 RDAT4 
 Informal/Evidentiary Hearing 
 
54 
 16-2254W 
 11/23/2016 
 Closed – Notice of Findings (Dismissed) 
 ARB 
  
 Yes 
 Informal 
 
55 
 16-2391W 
 12/19/2016 
 Closed – No Prima Facie Case 
 CDCR 
  
 Yes 

3 AA: Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint consolidated with prior Adverse Action appeal. 
   DC: Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint consolidated with prior Discrimination Complaint. 
   E:  Converted to formal evidentiary hearing. 
   WB: Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint consolidated with other Whistleblower Retaliation Complaint. 
 
4 RDAT: indicates whether complainant requested disciplinary action be taken.