Newsletter

Brown v. City of Inglewood

By Jennifer K. Berneking, Of Counsel; Ruth M. Bond, Partner; Jenica D. Maldonado, Partner; and Irma Rodríguez Moisa, Partner; Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo

Originally published on July 16, 2025. Republished with permission from Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo.

On July 7, 2025, the California Supreme Court decided the issue of whether an elected official may rely on the protections offered whistleblowers under California Labor Code § 1102.5.  The Supreme Court decided that an elected official is not considered an employee for purposes of Labor Code § 1102.5.

Read More

Wanda Brown was the elected City Treasurer of Inglewood since 1987.  In her role as Treasurer, she reported possible financial misconduct to the City Council.  After she raised these concerns, she alleged that the City and individual City Council members retaliated against her by stripping her duties and council seat, cutting her salary by 83% and locking her and her staff out of her office, among other things.  Brown sued the City, the Mayor and the City Council members for violation of Labor Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower retaliation), defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In response, the Defendants filed a Special Motion to Strike Brown’s Complaint under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.  The Trial Court denied the anti-SLAPP motion on the ground that Brown’s Labor Code § 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claim did not implicate the anti-SLAPP statute because it arose from the alleged reprisals and not from Defendants’ speech-related activities pertaining to governance.  Given its conclusion, the Trial Court’s anti-SLAPP ruling did not address whether Brown was an employee under Labor Code § 1102.5.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the denial as to the individual defendants relying on City of Montebello v. Vasquez (2016) 1 Cal.5^th 409, 422, 426, which held that council members’ votes as well as statements made in the course of their deliberations at the city council meeting where the votes were taken qualify for protection under the anti-SLAPP statute.  Since the Court of Appeal found that the anti-SLAPP statute applied, it had to address whether Brown had shown a probability that she would prevail on the merits of her claim.  The Court of Appeal found that Brown could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits of her claim because as an elected official, Brown was not an employee who could invoke Labor Code § 1102.5’s whistleblower protections. The Court of Appeal reached this conclusion relying on Labor Code § 1106’s language which defines employee for purposes of section 1102.5 and does not mention elected officials as coming within that definition.

The California Supreme Court granted review of the matter and limited the issue under consideration only as to whether elected officials are employees for purposes of whistleblower protection under Labor Code § 1102.5(b).  After considering the Legislative history of Labor Code § 1106, other public worker whistleblower statutes, and delving into the meaning of “employee,” the California Supreme Court adopted the Court of Appeal’s holding that elected officials are excluded from the definition of “employee” under Labor Code § 1102.5 and cannot seek protection under that statute. The importance of this ruling clarifies the limits of whistleblower protections under Labor Code § 1102.5 to apply to employees only and forces elected officials to seek remedies via other means.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

< Back to Full Issue Print Article