Bill Text: CA SB219 | 2009-2010 | Regular Session | Enrolled
Bill Title: Disclosure of improper governmental activities:
Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 2-0)
Status: (Vetoed) 2010-01-19 - Stricken from Senate file. [SB219 Detail]
Download: California-2009-SB219-Enrolled.html
BILL NUMBER: SB 219 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 24, 2009
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY JULY 13, 2009
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 26, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 13, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Senator Yee
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Portantino)
FEBRUARY 23, 2009
An act to amend Section 8547.10 of the Government Code, relating
to improper governmental activities.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 219, Yee. Disclosure of improper governmental activities:
University of California: damages.
Existing law, the California Whistleblower Protection Act,
authorizes a University of California employee or applicant for
employment to have an available action for damages caused by
intentional acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, or coercion only
if the university failed to reach a decision regarding a complaint
filed with a specified university officer by the injured party within
the time limits established for that purpose by the Regents of the
University of California.
This bill would also authorize an available action for damages if
the university reached a decision regarding the complaint filed with
the specified university officer and state that these provisions are
not intended to prohibit an injured party from seeking a remedy if
the university has not satisfactorily addressed the complaint within
18 months.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 8547.10 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
8547.10. (a) A University of California employee, including an
officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment may file a
written complaint with his or her supervisor or manager, or with any
other university officer designated for that purpose by the regents,
alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar improper acts for having made a protected
disclosure, together with a sworn statement that the contents of the
written complaint are true, or are believed by the affiant to be
true, under penalty of perjury. The complaint shall be filed within
12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
(b) Any person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal,
retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a University
of California employee, including an officer or faculty member, or
applicant for employment for having made a protected disclosure, is
subject to a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and
imprisonment in the county jail for up to a period of one year. Any
university employee, including an officer or faculty member, who
intentionally engages in that conduct shall also be subject to
discipline by the university.
(c) In addition to all other penalties provided by law, any person
who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats,
coercion, or similar acts against a university employee, including
an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment for having
made a protected disclosure shall be liable in an action for damages
brought against him or her by the injured party. Punitive damages may
be awarded by the court where the acts of the offending party are
proven to be malicious. Where liability has been established, the
injured party shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees as
provided by law. An action for damages shall be available to the
injured party only if the injured party has first filed a complaint
with the university officer identified pursuant to subdivision (a),
and the university has either reached a decision regarding the
complaint, or failed, within the time limits established by the
regents, to reach a decision regarding the complaint. Nothing in this
section is intended to prohibit the injured party from seeking a
remedy if the university has not satisfactorily addressed the
complaint within 18 months.
(d) This section is not intended to prevent a manager or
supervisor from taking, directing others to take, recommending, or
approving any personnel action or from taking or failing to take a
personnel action with respect to any university employee, including
an officer or faculty member, or applicant for employment if the
manager or supervisor reasonably believes any action or inaction is
justified on the basis of evidence separate and apart from the fact
that the person has made a protected disclosure.
(e) In any civil action or administrative proceeding, once it has
been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity
protected by this article was a contributing factor in the alleged
retaliation against a former, current, or prospective employee, the
burden of proof shall be on the supervisor, manager, or appointing
power to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the
alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent
reasons even if the employee had not engaged in protected disclosures
or refused an illegal order. If the supervisor, manager, or
appointing power fails to meet this burden of proof in an adverse
action against the employee in any administrative review, challenge,
or adjudication in which retaliation has been demonstrated to be a
contributing factor, the employee shall have a complete affirmative
defense in the adverse action.
(f) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to diminish the
rights, privileges, or remedies of any employee under any other
federal or state law or under any employment contract or collective
bargaining agreement.
