In Chaudhry v. State of California (Sept. 28, 2026) 123 Cal.App.5th 690, the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that individual supervisors who retaliate in violation of the Labor Code’s whistleblower protection law, Labor Code section 1102.5, cannot be held individually liable.
In that case, the plaintiff worked as a dental assistant at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”), which provides dental care for prison inmates and is operated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”).
In 2018, she told her immediate supervisor that certain personal protective equipment (“PPE”) was contaminated and, a few days later, she filed a complaint with the California Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA). Her management knew she was the complainant.
Approximately three months later, in retaliation for having filed the complaint, the plaintiff’s immediate supervisor issued an unwarranted letter of instruction, criticizing her job performance. CMF management also retaliated by not naming her acting supervising dental assistant, which would have helped her advance in her career.
The following year, the plaintiff filed another Cal-OSHA complaint and, again, CMF retaliated, this time by suspending her without pay or benefits for one month, asserting unprofessional conduct despite there being no basis in fact.
This pattern continued with the plaintiff making additional complaints and management retaliating against her, including terminations and reinstatements.
During this time, the plaintiff filed a civil complaint, which included a cause of action for retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, and named her supervisor and others as individual defendants.
The individual defendants argued that they could not be held liable for violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 because they were not the employer “and the statute’s ‘any person acting on behalf of an employer’ language should not be construed to impose personal liability on individual supervisors or managers.” The appellate court agreed.
The court first considered the statutory language and legislative history of the statute. It then considered the California Supreme Court’s prior rulings in Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158 and Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640, which addressed individual liability for supervisors under a different statutory scheme. In those cases, the court concluded that supervisors could not be held individually liable for discrimination or retaliation in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “FEHA”).
The court then went on to explain that it was “apparently the first California court to consider this issue” but noted that its conclusion—that there is no individual liability for supervisors under Labor Code section 1102.5—was “consistent with the overwhelming consensus of federal district courts that have addressed the issue.” The court then went on to summarize some of those cases, before concluding with the following:
In sum, the language of [Labor Code] section 1102.5(b) is ambiguous when construed in the context of the larger statutory scheme. Nothing in [the] legislative history indicates the Legislature intended to impose individual liability upon supervisors, even after the California Supreme Court held that language similar to that used in section 1102.5(b) did not create individual liability for retaliation under [the FEHA] whereas other, more explicit language did create individual liability for harassment. [The Jones court] reasoning for construing a retaliation statute not to impose personal liability on supervisors applies with much the same force to [Labor Code] section 1102.5(b), and nothing in [the] legislative history gives reason to depart from [the Jones holding] here. We therefore hold that a plaintiff cannot sue an individual manager or supervisor for retaliation under [Labor Code] section 1102.5.
The ruling provides clarity regarding liability for individual supervisors who take action that may appear retaliatory pursuant to the Labor Code and is consistent with the standard applicable to individual supervisors for discrimination or retaliation claims under the FEHA.
This legal update and any use of its information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Nothing contained on this website should be considered legal advice for any specific employer or employment situation. Consult legal counsel before taking any action as a result of information contained herein.
