Amended
IN
Senate
August 15, 2024 |
Amended
IN
Senate
June 27, 2024 |
Amended
IN
Senate
June 13, 2024 |
Amended
IN
Senate
June 03, 2024 |
Amended
IN
Assembly
April 04, 2024 |
Amended
IN
Assembly
March 21, 2024 |
Introduced by Assembly Member Gabriel (Coauthor: Assembly Member Wilson) |
February 13, 2024 |
Existing law authorizes a state employee or applicant for state employment who files a written complaint with, among other specified persons, their supervisor, alleging actual or attempted acts of, among other things, reprisal, to also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board,
as specified. The act requires the state employee or applicant for state employment to file their complaint with the board within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
This bill would, notwithstanding the above-described provision, authorize the board to accept the complaint within 5 years of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
(a)A state employee or applicant for state employment who files a written complaint with their supervisor, manager, or the appointing power alleging actual or attempted acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar improper acts prohibited by Section 8547.3, may also file a copy of the written complaint with the State Personnel Board, 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.
(1)The state employee or applicant for state employment shall file their complaint with the board within 12 months of the most recent act of reprisal complained about.
(2)Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the board may accept the complaint filed by the state employee or applicant for state employment within five years 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 state employee or applicant for state 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 a period not to exceed one year. Pursuant to Section 19683, any state civil service employee who intentionally engages in that conduct shall be disciplined by adverse action as provided by Section 19572.
(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 state employee or applicant for state employment for having made a protected disclosure shall be liable in an action for damages brought against them 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. However, any action for damages shall not be available to the injured party unless the injured party has first filed a complaint with the State Personnel Board pursuant to subdivision (a), and the board has issued, or failed to issue, findings pursuant to Section 19683.
(d)This section is not intended to prevent an appointing power, 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 state employee or applicant for state employment if the appointing power, 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 as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 8547.2.
(e)In any civil action or administrative proceeding, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of 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.