Retaliation
Chaudhry v. California (1st Dist., 2026): No Individual Supervisor Liability Under Section 1102.5
Updated
In Chaudhry v. California, the First District Court of Appeal held, as a matter of first impression, that a plaintiff cannot sue an individual manager or supervisor for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b). The court affirmed judgment for the three individual defendants, reversed judgment for the remaining defendants on the plaintiff’s section 1102.5 claim to the extent it rested on a constructive-discharge theory, and affirmed on the plaintiff’s Whistleblower Protection Act claim. The opinion was certified for publication.
Background
Farzana Chaudhry worked as a dental assistant for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at a facility in Vacaville. Beginning in 2018, she made a series of workplace-safety complaints to Cal-OSHA and internally, and she alleged that management responded with escalating retaliation.
That alleged retaliation included critical performance write-ups, a one-month unpaid suspension in late 2019, and two separate terminations—in November 2020 and February 2022—each later overturned or rescinded, after which she involuntarily resigned in August 2022.
Chaudhry presented a government claim in September 2020 and another in January 2023, filed complaints with the State Personnel Board, and ultimately sued for retaliation under section 1102.5 and the California Whistleblower Protection Act, plus constructive discharge. The Solano County Superior Court granted the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed every cause of action without leave to amend.
What the Court Held on Individual Supervisor Liability
The individual defendants argued they could not be personally liable under section 1102.5, which bars retaliation by “an employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer.” Reviewing the question of statutory interpretation de novo, the court found that phrase ambiguous when read against the surrounding provisions of the statutory scheme.
Neighboring sections, the court explained, focus on employer responsibility for a supervisor’s acts, and section 1102.6—which sets the burdens of proof—refers only to the employer’s defense, not to persons acting on the employer’s behalf. The legislative history showed no intent to make individual supervisors personally liable.
Taking guidance from Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, which held that similarly worded language in the Fair Employment and Housing Act does not reach individual supervisors for retaliation, the court reached the same conclusion here. It also noted its holding aligns with the overwhelming consensus of federal district courts to have addressed the issue.
A plaintiff cannot sue an individual manager or supervisor for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b). Its “any person acting on behalf of the employer” language does not impose personal liability on supervisors.
What the Court Held on the Claims and Exhaustion Questions
On the section 1102.5 claim against the remaining defendants, the court held that the plaintiff adequately alleged compliance with the Government Claims Act as to one theory: constructive discharge. The repeated baseless terminations, interspersed with efforts to obstruct her work, could allow a jury to find the intolerable conditions required for a constructive discharge, and the January 2023 government claim covered that theory.
On the Whistleblower Protection Act claim, the court affirmed. That statute makes a damages action unavailable unless the injured party “first” files a complaint with the State Personnel Board, and Chaudhry had filed her original lawsuit on the same underlying facts before exhausting that process. She identified no amendment that could cure the defect.
The court also declined to affirm on the ground that the State of California was not a proper party, noting that an employee may have both the State and CDCR as employers. That issue was left open for the trial court on remand.
What This Means for You
This decision settles, for the first time in a published California opinion, that individual managers and supervisors cannot be held personally liable for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5—liability runs to the employer. It also addresses the government-claim and administrative-exhaustion rules that govern section 1102.5 and Whistleblower Protection Act claims against public employers.
I write these summaries as general information about developments in California employment law. They are not legal advice and don’t create a mediator–client relationship. For guidance on a specific matter, consult a qualified attorney.