Taswell v. Regents of University of California (May 14, 2018, G053960) __ Cal.App.5th __ [2018 WL 2191561]
Dr. Carl Taswell was employed by UCLA Medical School as a nuclear medicine physician with responsibility for radiation safety issues. Dr. Taswell complained to the chair of his department about potential safety and compliance problems, and later expressed similar concerns at a safety committee meeting, in an email to a radiation safety officer, and in a report to the California Department of Public Health. When Dr. Taswell entered a nearby radiochemistry lab to document perceived safety violations, UCLA placed him on a paid leave of absence pending investigation into his allegedly unauthorized lab entry. UCLA later notified him his contract would not be renewed due to his alleged refusal to do his job, interpersonal issues, and improper behavior at the safety committee meeting. Dr. Taswell initiated a grievance procedure claiming whistleblower retaliation, which resulted in an adverse finding by UCLA. Rather than filing a petition for writ of mandamus, Dr. Taswell filed a whistleblower action for damages in superior court. The trial court granted summary judgment against Dr. Taswell based on his failure to exhaust judicial remedies and because his retaliation claims were barred by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. Dr. Taswell appealed.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that Dr. Taswell was not required to exhaust his judicial remedies by seeking a writ of mandamus challenging the adverse administrative decision before filing his whistleblower retaliation action, and that the administrative decision lacked res judicata or collateral estoppel effect. Specifically, Dr. Taswell was authorized to sue for damages under (1) Government Code section 8547.10, which allows whistleblowers to seek a remedy “if the university has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint,” because UCLA’s adverse administrative decision was not satisfactory to Dr. Taswell; (2) Health and Safety Code section 1278.5, which does not condition the right to seek civil remedies on a prior successful mandamus challenge; and (3) Labor Code section 1102.5 and Government Code section 12653, because each statute reflects the Legislature’s intent to permit a claim of damages without first challenging an administrative decision by a writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeal further held that the University’s administrative decision lacked preclusive effect in the whistleblower action under Runyon v. Board of Trustees of California State University (2010) 48 Cal.4th 760, 774. Finally, the court determined that a triable issue prevented summary judgment as to whether UCLA’s decision to place Dr. Taswell on leave (and not renew his contract) had a causal connection to his whistleblower activities, since the employment decision was made in close temporal proximity to his disclosures regarding potential safety violations.
Prepared by H. Thomas Watson and Peder K. Batalden, Horvitz & Levy, LLP
California Society for Healthcare Attorneys
1215 K Street, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814
T 916.552.7605 | F 916.552.2607
