The California Supreme Court issued several important decisions in 2024 about issues such as the application of the state Private Attorneys General Act to public employees and the definition of “hours worked.”
Several cases are still pending before the state’s high court. Here are the highlights and what the decisions could mean for employers in the Golden State.
Are elected officials “employees” for the purposes of whistleblower protection under California Labor Code Section 1102.5, subdivision (b)?
The plaintiff, the elected treasurer of Inglewood since 1987, sued the city and several members of the Inglewood City Council. The plaintiff alleged that after she reported concerns about financial improprieties, the city and the individual defendants defamed and retaliated against her. She brought claims of defamation, violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5 (which prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting illegal activities), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
The defendants filed a special motion to strike the complaint under California’s anti-strategic lawsuit against public participation (anti-SLAPP) statute, which aims to prevent lawsuits that are intended to silence free speech. The trial court granted the motion in part but denied it regarding the Section 1102.5 retaliation claim and the IIED claim based on retaliation.
On appeal, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s decision in part. The...
This article is part of The Poynter 50, a series reflecting on 50 moments and people that shaped journalism over the past half-century — and continue to influence its future. As Poynter celebrates...