A County firefighter with more than 20 years of service raised concerns about safety violations related to the maintenance of fire extinguishers on County fire engines. After reporting these issues to his supervisors in 2020, the Department removed him from fire prevention duties. The firefighter believed that the action was retaliation for his whistleblowing. He filed internal complaints with the County’s Office of Human Resources and the Civil Service Commission. But later withdrew his appeal after being assured that the issues would be addressed.
In 2022, the County investigated the firefighter for alleged misconduct and terminated his employment for violations of County rules. The firefighter submitted a claim under the Government Claims Act, which the County denied, and sued the County for retaliation for his whistleblower activities.
The superior court granted the County’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court ruled that the firefighter could not pursue his whistleblower action because he did not exhaust available administrative remedies by first appealing his termination to the Civil Service Commission. The court also denied the firefighter leave to amend.
The California Court of Appeal reversed. No exhaustion of internal administrative remedies was required because the County’s ordinances and rules did not establish a clear procedure for presenting, investigating, and resolving whistleblower retaliation claims. The Court distinguished general disciplinary appeal processes from administrative remedies for discrimination or harassment, and found that the County had no comparable remedy for whistleblower retaliation. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the case to the superior court. The decision clarifies that if an internal administrative remedy does not specifically cover a particular claim, exhaustion of that remedy is not a prerequisite to filing suit.
Romero v. County of Kern, 116 Cal. App. 5th 1189 (2025).