California’s whistleblower protection statute prohibits retaliation by an employer or anyone acting on the employer’s behalf. But does that mean an employee can sue a supervisor personally? In Chaudry v. State of California, A173501 (Sept. 28, 2026), a California Court of Appeal answered that question: individual managers and supervisors are not personally liable for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5. The published decision addresses an issue California appellate courts had not previously resolved under the statute’s current language.
The decision gives managers and supervisors a meaningful defense, but employers should remain vigilant in exercising best practices to prevent these claims from being filed against them.
Case Holding
Chaudhry worked as a dental assistant for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). She alleged that management retaliated against her after she raised workplace safety concerns internally and with Cal-OSHA. According to her complaint, the retaliation included unwarranted criticism, a suspension without pay and benefits, and two dismissals.
The State Personnel Board overturned the first dismissal. After Chaudhry returned to work, she alleged that her supervisor obstructed her ability to perform her duties and that CDCR dismissed her again less than a month later. CDCR subsequently withdrew the second dismissal. Chaudhry resigned on the day she was scheduled to return, alleging that the repeated dismissals and interference with her work amounted to a constructive discharge.
Chaudhry sued the State, CDCR, and three individual defendants. The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings for all defendants. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the individuals but allowed the section 1102.5 claim to proceed against the employer entity defendants. Because the appeal concerned the sufficiency of the complaint, the court accepted properly pleaded allegations as true without deciding whether retaliation actually occurred.
Why Doesn’t “Any Person” Mean Individual Supervisor Liability?
Chaudhry argued that section 1102.5’s prohibition against retaliation by persons acting on an employer’s behalf allowed her to sue supervisors personally. The court found that the language could support that reading in isolation, but the surrounding statutes pointed toward employer but not supervisor (personal) liability.
Labor Code sections 1104 and 1105 emphasize employer responsibility for the conduct of managers and employees and recovery of damages from employers. Section 1102.6 likewise gives the employer the opportunity to prove that an employment action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons. It does not provide a corresponding defense for individual supervisors.
The court also looked to Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1158, which held that supervisors are not personally liable for retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Nothing in section 1102.5’s legislative history persuaded the court to reach a different result here.
The court therefore held that “a plaintiff cannot sue an individual manager or supervisor for retaliation under section 1102.5.” (Chaudhry, slip op. at pp. 34–35.)
Supervisors Exit, but the Employer Remains
The employer defendants had less success. The court concluded that Chaudhry’s allegations could support a constructive discharge theory under section 1102.5.
Ordinary workplace criticism or disagreements generally do not make working conditions intolerable. But the alleged combination of repeated baseless dismissals, interruptions in pay and benefits, and interference with Chaudhry’s work could compel a reasonable employee to resign. Withdrawing the second dismissal did not necessarily resolve the alleged conditions that prompted her departure.
That conclusion allowed the claim to proceed to litigation; it did not establish employer liability. The employer could still prove legitimate, independent reasons for the challenged actions under section 1102.6. (Id. at pp. 17–22.)
The decision also provides a procedural reminder for public employers. The court found timely government claim presentation for the constructive discharge theory but affirmed dismissal of Chaudhry’s separate California Whistleblower Protection Act claim. Filing the required State Personnel Board complaint after commencing litigation, then amending the lawsuit to add that statutory claim, did not cure the exhaustion defect concerning the same underlying events. (Id. at pp. 35–41.)
Takeaways for Employers
- Evaluate claims against individual supervisors. Chaudhry provides published California authority to challenge section 1102.5 retaliation claims against managers and supervisors personally. Although the case involved a public employer, the court’s interpretation of the statute is relevant to private employers as well.
- Build a clear record. Document legitimate reasons for discipline, dismissal, and other employment actions involving employees who have reported suspected legal violations. The employer remains potentially liable for retaliatory conduct by its managers.
- Pay attention after reinstatement. Reversing a dismissal does not necessarily resolve retaliation concerns. Review assignments, access to workplace systems, and subsequent discipline to ensure the returning employee can perform the job without retaliatory obstacles.
- For public employers, examine procedural requirements separately. Government claim presentation and State Personnel Board exhaustion are distinct requirements that depend on the cause of action asserted.
Chaudhry clarifies who can be sued under section 1102.5 while reinforcing the need to examine what happened in the workplace. Managers and supervisors have a defense to personal liability under this statute; employers still need a defensible explanation for their employment decisions.
If you have questions about how Chaudhry may affect your workplace or pending litigation, contact your CDF Labor Law LLP attorney.
A special thank you to our law clerk, Ryan Kim, for his research and contributions to this article.
