BILL ANALYSIS SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Senator Ellen M. Corbett, Chair 2009-2010 Regular Session AB 1749 (Lowenthal and Strickland) As Amended April 27, 2010 Hearing Date: June 29, 2010 Fiscal: Yes Urgency: No KB:jd SUBJECT California Whistleblower Protection Act: Administrative Office of the Courts DESCRIPTION This bill would expand existing whistleblower protections under the California Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA) to include employees of the judicial branch. BACKGROUND The CWPA prohibits state employees from using or attempting to use their official authority or influence to interfere with the rights of an employee to make a good faith communication that discloses information which may evidence an improper governmental activity, or any condition that may significantly threaten the health or safety of employees or the public. The CWPA also provides a process by which a state employee who has made a protected disclosure may file a written complaint alleging adverse employment actions such as retaliation, reprisal threats, or coercion, with a supervisor or manager and with the State Personnel Board (SPB). On October 28, 2009, the Assembly Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review held an oversight hearing entitled "Administrative Office of the Courts: Improving Transparency." During this hearing, the authors of the measure learned that the CWPA does not apply to employees of the judicial branch. This bill seeks to expand existing whistleblower protections under the CWPA to employees of the judicial branch in order to (more) AB 1749 (Lowenthal and Strickland) Page 2 of ? promote transparency. CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW Existing law , the California Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA), protects state employees from retaliation by their employer for reporting fraud, waste, abuse of authority, violation of law, or activities that create a threat to public health. (Gov. Code Sec. 8547 et seq.) Existing law makes a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal or retaliation in violation of the CWPA subject to a fine of up to $10,000 and up to a year in county jail, and if that person is a civil service employee, subjects that person to discipline by adverse action. A person injured by such acts may bring an action for damages only after filing a complaint with the State Personnel Board (SPB) and the SPB issued, or failed to issue, findings of its hearings or investigation. (Gov. Code Sec. 8547.12.) Existing law provides a process by which a state employee may file a written complaint alleging adverse employment actions such as retaliation, reprisal threats, or coercion, with a supervisor or manager and with the SPB. Existing law requires the SPB to initiate an investigation or a proceeding within 10 working days of submission of a written complaint, and to complete findings of the investigation or hearing within 60 working days thereafter. (Gov. Code Sec. 19683.) Existing law provides that no public or private employer may make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. (Lab. Code Sec. 1102.5.) Existing law likewise prohibits public and private employers from retaliating against an employee for: (a) disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation; (b) refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a AB 1749 (Lowenthal and Strickland) Page 3 of ? violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation; or (c) having exercised his or her rights to do so in any former employment. (Lab. Code Sec. 1102.5.) Existing law provides that any employer who violates these provisions is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable, in the case of an individual, by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year or a fine not to exceed $1,000 or both and, in the case of a corporation, by a fine not to exceed $5,000, and provides that in all prosecutions under this chapter, the employer is responsible for the acts of his managers, officers, agents, and employees. (Lab. Code Secs. 1103-04.) This bill would include a person employed by the Supreme Court, a court of appeal, a superior court, or the Administrative Office of the Courts within the definition of "employee" for the purposes of the California Whistleblower Protection Act, except as specified. This bill would authorize an employee or applicant for employment with those judiciary entities who files a written complaint alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts for having made a protected disclosure, to also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board, together with a sworn statement that the written complaint is true, under penalty of perjury. This bill would require the State Personnel Board to investigate any claim filed and make a recommendation regarding the alleged retaliation. This bill would provide that any person, except as specified, who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, or similar prohibited acts against an employee or applicant for employment with those judiciary entities for having made a protected disclosure, is subject to punishment for a misdemeanor, and shall be liable in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. This bill would prohibit an employee of those judiciary entities from using his or her official authority or influence in violation of these provisions, and would make that employee liable, except as specified, in an action for civil damages brought by the injured party. COMMENT 1.Stated need for the bill AB 1749 (Lowenthal and Strickland) Page 4 of ? The joint authors state: All working Californians enjoy some level of protection from retaliation if they report a violation of law by their employer. But that blanket protection granted in the Labor Code does not cover those who report instances of what is generically called waste, fraud or abuse, in the non-criminal sense. Because it is in the interest of all Californians to uncover wasteful or inappropriate activities of public officials, the state's Whistleblower Protection Act provides very broad protection so that any employee may feel safe when calling attention to actions they believe are not for the public good. The important functions of the Judicial Branch will cost Californians about $3.7 billion this year. In recent years, the branch, like all areas of government, has sustained significant budget reductions. These reductions have in some cases reduced the public's access to the court system. There are significant disagreements over the setting of budgetary priorities, and in some cases branch employees have suggested that administrators have not used resources in the most appropriate manner. Some employees have suggested making any kind of complaint about the allocation of resources or other branch administrative activity runs the risk of reprisal and retaliation. There are pending court cases around exactly such allegations. AB 1749 makes no judgment on those allegations, but clearly articulates the belief that the cause of transparency in government is best served when government employees feel most free to call attention to actions they believe are not in the public interest. Further, the Judicial Council writes in support: The courts and the AOC are entrusted with a significant share of state taxpayer dollars, and it is appropriate that judicial branch entities are held accountable for their expenditure of those funds in a manner analogous to the other branches. AB 1749 will promote that result and ensure that there is no appearance that judicial branch expenditures are lacking in accountability or transparency?By creating a unique procedure for consideration of retaliation complaints, which vests final decision-making authority for complaints filed with the AB 1749 (Lowenthal and Strickland) Page 5 of ? employer and the State Personnel Board within the judicial branch, AB 1749 clearly acknowledges that an independent co-equal branch of government must have independent authority to oversee its employees. 2.Bill would extend specified whistleblower protections to employees of the judicial branch This bill would redefine the term "employee" in the CWPA to specifically include persons employed by the Supreme Court, a court of appeal, a superior court, or the Administrative Office of the Courts for the purposes of specified provisions of the CWPA, as described below. a) Use of official authority or influence to interfere with disclosures Existing law provides that an employee may not directly or indirectly attempt to use the official authority or influence of the employee for the purposes of intimidating, threatening, coercing, or commanding any person for the purpose of interfering with the rights conferred by the CWPA. (Gov. Code Sec. 8547.3.) An employee who violates these provisions may be liable in an action for civil damages brought against the employee by the offended party. (Id.) This bill would extend these protections to judicial branch employees. b) State Auditor investigation and report The CWPA authorizes the State Auditor to receive complaints from state employees and members of the public who wish to report an improper governmental activity. (Gov. Code Sec. 8547.4.) An "improper governmental activity" is defined, as any action that violates the law, is economically wasteful, or involves gross misconduct, incompetency, or inefficiency. (Gov. Code Sec. 8547.2.) The complaints received by the State Auditor shall remain confidential, and the identity of the complainant may not be revealed without the permission of the complainant, except to an appropriate law enforcement agency conducting a criminal investigation. (Gov. Code Sec. 8547.5.) If, after investigating, the State Auditor finds that an employee may have engaged or participated in improper governmental activities, the State Auditor must prepare an investigative report and send a copy to the employee's appointing power. (Gov. Code Sec. 8547.4.) If appropriate, the State Auditor may also confidentially report the matter to AB 1749 (Lowenthal and Strickland) Page 6 of ? the Attorney General, the Legislature, or any other entity having jurisdiction over the matter, or issue a public report on the matter, keeping confidential the identities of the individuals involved. (Gov. Code Sec. 8547.7.) The State Auditor does not have enforcement powers and cannot order a department or official to take any action. (Id.) Within 60 days of receiving the State Auditor's investigative report, an appointing power must either serve a notice of adverse action upon the employee or set forth in writing its reasons for not taking adverse action. (Gov. Code Sec. 8547.4.) The appointing power must submit its written reasons for not taking adverse action to the State Auditor and State Personnel Board, and the State Personnel Board may take adverse action as specified. An employee who is served with a notice of adverse action may appeal to the State Personnel Board. (Id.) This bill would include within the definition of "improper governmental activity" any activity by the Supreme Court, a court of appeal, a superior court, or the Administrative Office of the Courts, or by an employee thereof, who otherwise meets the criteria of the definition. Thus, the State Auditor would have authority to receive complaints and investigate improper governmental activities within the judicial branch. However, this bill would seemingly exclude the judicial branch employees from these provisions of existing law "concerning notice of adverse action and the State Personnel Board." Presumably, this is intended to exclude adverse actions against or appeals from judicial branch employees from the jurisdiction of the State Personnel Board. Instead the role of the State Personnel Board would be more limited, as described below. c) State Personnel Board would have limited role This bill would provide that an employee or applicant who files a written complaint with an agency officer alleging acts of retaliation or other similar acts prohibited by the CWPA could also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board under penalty of perjury within 12 months of the most recent act complained about. The State Personnel Board would be required to investigate any complaint filed and make a recommendation to the hiring entity of the agency of the employee or applicant regarding whether retaliation AB 1749 (Lowenthal and Strickland) Page 7 of ? resulted in an adverse action regarding the employee and, if so, which steps should be taken to remedy the situation. In contrast to other employees covered by the CWPA, the State Personnel Board would not have authority to do more than make recommendations, such as order relief for the injured employee or discipline the employee found to have engaged in improper governmental activities. According to the author, this role of the State Personnel Board has been limited in this bill because of expressed concerns by the Judicial Council that it is inappropriate to grant an executive branch agency the power to impose personnel decisions over employees of a separate branch of government. However, the penalties and liability imposed on employees found to be in violation of this bill are substantially the same as those currently in the CWPA. The use of the phrase "provisions of Section 8547.4 concerning notice of adverse actions and the State Personnel Board" in proposed Section 8547.2 is vague and potentially confusing. This committee may wish to consider whether these provisions should be clarified so that they more clearly define or limit the role of the State Personnel Board under this bill. d) Penalties and liability Pursuant to this bill, a judicial branch employee who is found to have retaliated, threatened or engaged in other similar acts against another employee or applicant for having made a protected disclosure shall be subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 and imprisonment in a county jail for up to one year. Further, the employee found to be in violation of this bill would also be subject to civil liability in an action for damages brought against him or her by the injured party. Punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees would also be available to the injured party. The injured party need not first file a complaint with his or her agency or the State Personnel Board before bringing a civil action. As previously stated, these penalties and liability are substantively similar to those currently proscribed by the CWPA. However, the penalties and civil liability shall only apply to justices and judges subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission on Judicial Performance to the extent that they are not immune from liability under the doctrine of judicial immunity. Thus, judges and justices would not lose the judicial immunity they traditionally enjoy for adjudicative functions, but could potentially be subject to penalties and liability for AB 1749 (Lowenthal and Strickland) Page 8 of ? violations of the CWPA committed in the course of their administrative duties. Support : American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO; California Labor Federation; California Official Court Reporters Association; California Protective Parents Association; Center for Judicial Excellence; Glendale City Employees Association; Laborers' International Union of North America, Locals 777 and 792; Judicial Council; Orange County Employees Association; Organization of SMUD Employees; Professional and Technical Engineers, IFPTE Local 21; San Bernardino Public Employees Association; San Diego County Court Employees Association; San Luis Obispo County Employees Association; Santa Rosa City Employees Association; Service Employees International Union Opposition : None Known HISTORY Source : Author Related Pending Legislation : SB 520 (Yee) would revise the CWPA so that complaints filed by University of California employees are treated the same as those filed by California State University employees. This bill is currently on the Assembly Floor. Prior Legislation : SB 219 (Yee) of the 2009 Legislative Session was substantively similar to SB 520. This bill was vetoed by the Governor. SB 220 (Yee) of the 2009 Legislative Session would have, among other things, expanded the application of the CWPA to former state employees who have been covered by the CWPA during their employment. This bill has since been substantively amended to deal with different subject matter. Prior Vote : Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0) Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 16, Noes 0) Assembly Floor (Ayes 70, Noes 0) ************** AB 1749 (Lowenthal and Strickland) Page 9 of ?