On July 7, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Brown v. City of Inglewood, ruling that elected officials are not considered “employees” under California’s whistleblower statute, Labor Code Section 1102.5. The ruling affirms the holding of the Court of Appeal, which concluded that elected officials may not seek relief under Labor Code Section 1102.5 because they are not “employees” under that statute.
The case stems from Plaintiff Wanda Brown, the former elected City Treasurer for the City of Inglewood (“City”), reporting concerns about financial improprieties involving City funds to the City Council. After Brown reported her concerns to the City Council, the City Council voted to reduce Brown’s job duties and her salary.
Brown then sued the City and individual members of the City Council, alleging that the City retaliated against her in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. Section 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against an employee who reports conduct by the employer that the employee reasonably believes to be illegal.
The trial court denied the Defendants City and the City Council member’s joint motion to strike the complaint, allowing Brown’s retaliation claim to proceed.
The Defendants appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal, which held that Brown could not seek relief for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 because Brown, as an elected official, was not an employee of the City.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the Legislature did not reference elected officials as being within the scope of the term “employee” for the purposes of Labor Code section 1102.5 as the Legislature did in other sections of the Labor Code. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Legislature’s exclusion of elected officials from the Labor Code section 1102.5 definition of employee evinced a legislative intent to exclude elected officials from the definition of employee and to deny their right to sue public agencies under that section.
By affirming the Court of Appeal decision, the Supreme Court held that elected officials do not have standing to sue under Labor Code Section 1102.5 because they are not considered employees under that statute. In the Court’s decision, the Court noted that the legislative history behind the enactment of Labor Code Section 1106, which defines “employee” as it is used in Labor Code Section 1102.5, suggests a “particular purpose of protecting rank-and-file employees from supervisors and managers,” not protecting elected officials.
Notably, elected officials differ from other public employees in notable ways, for instance elected officials report to the electorate rather than to managers and supervisors, which provides elected officials unique access to platforms from which to speak and have their voices and concerns about possible unlawful acts amplified.
The Court concluded that, if it expanded the definition of the term employee under the statute to include elected officials, it would improperly expand the role of the judiciary and interfere with the legislative process.
The Brown v. City of Inglewood decision clarifies that elected officials are not “employees” for the purposes of Labor Code section 1102.5 and cannot seek relief under that section for allegedly retaliatory conduct engaged in by the agency for which the elected official serves.
Public agencies should review their retaliation policy to ensure that the policy does not represent that elected officials may sue the agency under Labor Code section 1102.5.