: Plaintiff was hired as the authorized user of the Brain Imaging Center at the University of California at Irvine (UCI) on a six-month contract. Shortly after his employment began, plaintiff complained about his colleagues, working conditions, and safety and compliance issues. UCI subsequently placed plaintiff on paid administrative leave and informed him that his contract would not be renewed—decisions the university attributed to plaintiff’s anger issues, inability to follow instructions, difficulty working with colleagues, and refusal to perform his job duties.
Plaintiff sued The Regents, asserting whistleblower retaliation claims under Government Code section 8547.10 and Labor Code section 1102.5. After a 16-day trial, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that plaintiff had engaged in protected whistleblowing activities but those activities were not a contributing factor to the university’s decisions to place him on leave and to not renew his contract.
Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by excluding evidence of events that occurred after the university took the adverse employment actions against him, and by excluding certain evidence, including two investigatory reports, a PowerPoint presentation, and correspondence between the university and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Plaintiff also argued that the law-of-the-case doctrine required the trial court to admit certain evidence based on a prior Court of Appeal opinion.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding that the law-of-the-case doctrine did not require the trial court to admit any evidence, and that none of the evidentiary rulings challenged by plaintiff amounted to prejudicial error.
