An employee at Cal State San Diego made a false report against a co-worker, and this ended up being protected activity for which he could not be disciplined. Ohton v. California State University of San Diego (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1402.
Here's what happened: a strength coach complained about the head football coach being drunk at an away game. The school investigated and determined the complaint was false. The strength coach was removed from football functions, although he was allowed to continue coaching other sports. He alleged retaliation in employment under the California Whistleblower Protection Act Gov't Code 8547.12(c) because the college did not "adequately address" his complaint of being retaliated against.
What was so inadequate in the college's addressing of the complaint? It determined the employee's original complaint against the head coach was based on hearsay. The Court of Appeals held that it's OK for an employee to base a complaint on hearsay; it still has to be taken seriously by the college. Because the college did not find that the strength coach was knowingly dishonest in making the drunkenness allegation, the employee was entitled to seek whistleblower remedies.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment