California Court of Appeal

In case involving a whistleblower claim, petition for a peremptory writ of mandate challenging trial court's overruling of demurrer to claim for retaliation is granted where: 1) since plaintiff was provided the opportunity to submit evidence, name witnesses, and argue his claim, he was provided with the type of quasi-judicial hearing sufficient to satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 even though the State Personnel Board was not required to provide an evidentiary hearing; and 2) since the Legislature did not clearly provide that a whistleblower could pursue alternative remedies and did require plaintiff to initiate administrative proceedings, he is collaterally estopped from relitigating the findings that were actually litigated in the quasi-adjudicatory proceedings.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/15/2008
• Published 02/15/2008

Judges

• RAYE, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• K. William Curtis, Warren C. Stracener, Sacramento, Sandra L. Lusich, and Tom Dyer, for Petitioners., No appearance for Real Party in Interest.


• For Appellees:
  
• No appearance for Respondent.