A prosecutor established a viable claim that he engaged in a protected activity for purposes of Labor Code Sec. 1102.5 where he showed that he disclosed information to people with authority over him which he reasonably believed disclosed a violation of or noncompliance with federal and state law applicable to criminal prosecutions and prosecutors. While the plaintiff did not expressly state in his disclosures that he believed the county was violating or not complying with a specific state or federal law, Sec. 1102.5 does not require such an express statement. A plaintiff arguably has a physical impairment that limited the major life activity of working where it required him to be absent from work periodically over several months to travel to an out-of-state clinic for medical testing.
Ross v. County of Riverside - filed May 20, 2019, publication ordered June 10, 2019, Fourth District, Div. One
Cite as 2019 S.O.S. 2677
For more information, go to:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment