Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EMPLOYEE STATUS—Cal. Sup. Ct.: California Supreme Court finds whistleblower statute does not protect elected officials from retaliation, (Jul 9, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

“We have a legislative focus on protecting rank-and-file public workers from the retaliation of supervisors or managers, which does not support a view of an employee as including an elected official.”

In a unanimous opinion, the California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and held that a former elected city official, who brought a cause of action claiming retaliation, fell outside the definition of the term “employee” in section 1106 of the California Labor Code and could not assert the whistleblower protections of section 1102.5. The court found that the statutory language, context, and history pointed to the exclusion of elected officials. In addition, the public policy of differential treatment of elected officials was reasonable, and the common law test of employment did not affect the resolution of the statutory interpretation question before the court (Brown v. City of Inglewood, No. S280773 (Cal. Sup. Ct. July 7, 2025)).

A former elected treasurer of the City of Inglewood claimed that she was retaliated against while in office after she wrote to the city and several of its officials, including its mayor and council members, raising concerns about the city’s financial affairs. Of note, she contended that the mayor had approved an overpayment of approximately $77,000 to a city contractor and as a result violated Penal Code section 424’s prohibition on misappropriating public funds. She alleged multiple retaliatory actions resulting from raising the concern, including loss of her “seat” at city council meetings, exclusion from several city committees, reduction of her multi-million-dollar investment authority to $50,000, restrictions on her use of investment software, deactivation of her computer, and reduction of her monthly salary as treasurer from $8,000 to $1,404, among other actions.

The City of Inglewood argued the former elected treasurer’s section 1102.5 retaliation cause of action lacked merit because the statute protects employees, not elected officials who cannot be hired or fired from office.

Statutory text. In analyzing the statutory text of both sections 1102.5 and 1106, the court stated, “Because the statutory text is inconclusive, we consider additional context and history.” In reviewing the context and history, the court concluded that elected officials differ from rank-and-file employees such as a building inspector discussed in section 1106’s legislative history. “They report to the electorate rather than managers or supervisors in a conventional sense,” the court wrote. Also, the court noted that had the legislature, when it enacted section 1106, wanted to include elected officers it could have taken cues from related statutes or legal pronouncements. Accordingly, the court found context and history showed that the term “employee” in section 1106, which does not reference elected officials or officers, was meant to exclude elected officials such as the elected treasurer.

Public policy. Reflecting on its interpretation of 1106, the court noted that it “aligns with a reasonable public policy choice.” The court said that the legislature has sometimes deemed it appropriate to exclude elected officials from workplace protection laws. Also, according to the court, exclusion of elected officials from section 1102.5 would not deprive such officials of relief potentially available under other whistleblower protections or other laws, including, as applicable, the First Amendment.

Common law. The former elected official also argued that the lack of a detailed definition of the term “employee” in section 1106, including the circumstance that the definition neither expressly includes nor excludes elected officials, requires courts to “turn to [the] common law test” of employment to define that statutory term. The court disagreed, finding that the common law test of employment did not affect the resolution of the statutory interpretation question before the court. However, the court added, “We do not foreclose the possibility that the common law might, in another context, offer guidance regarding the employee status of elected officials, but we do conclude the common law does not impact the outcome here.”

The case is No. S280773.

Attorneys: Richard P. Kinnan (Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack) for Wanda M. Brown. Mira Hashmall (Miller Barondess) for City of Inglewood.

Companies: City of Inglewood

Cases: Whistleblowers CoverageLiability PublicEmployees EmployeeStatus StateLawClaims Retaliation CaliforniaNews