ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Issues: (1) Did Patten suffer from a retaliatory practice by Grant under the Lab. Code, §
1102.5, subd. (b)? (2) Was the reassignment an adverse employment action? (3) Were the
incidents/issues disclosed all legal violations?
Holding: The court held that three of the four incidents/issues presented were not legal
violations. However, the fund reassignment scam was a legal violation that afforded Patten
protective measures from retaliatory practices. The court further held that upon review Patten did
present a triable case on the grounds of adverse employment action due to retaliation.
Reasoning: The Court of Appeal agreed that all the disclosures, with the exception of the
fund reassignments scam, were internal organization matters. Therefore, Patten was not afforded
any legal protection for those disclosures, nor could the court determine that any adverse actions
were triggered by those reports.
The court agreed yet disagreed with the trial court on the fund reassignments scam.
Unlike the trial court, the court of appeal found the Patten’s reassignment to be fraught with
disparities. While Patten did maintain salary and rank in theory and reality, she did not do so in
responsibilities. Patten, being a young administrator, was effectively demoted to a better school
where less was required of her, which the court surmised could create a ceiling for her career.
This was, to the court, an adverse employment action and presented a definable link to Patten’s
report of the funds reassignment scam.
Disposition: The court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
216