Bowles v. Regents

Filed 7/13/06 Bowles v. Regents CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

Harold Bowles timely appeals the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Regents of University of California, et al. (Regents) on his claims for retaliation in violation of public policy pursuant to Labor Code section 1102.5 et seq.,[1] and Government Code sections 8547 and 8547.10.[2] The trial court ruled Bowles' claims were barred due to his failure to seek writ review of final decisions in complaints Bowles pursued through University of California (UC) grievance procedures. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Bowles filed his Third Amended Complaint in September 2003 against the Regents and various officers of the University of California, individually and in their official capacities. Bowles is employed by the UC as a Custodial Supervisor in the Housing and Dining Department at UC Berkeley. Bowles claims he was subjected to an ongoing pattern of harassment and discrimination in his employment for two whistle-blowing incidents. First, Bowles wrote to Bob Jacobs, Housing Director, on February 18, 1992, about NABC, a germicidal chemical disinfectant used by UC staff for cleaning purposes. Bowles told Jacobs NABC was being improperly diluted at the direction of supervisory personnel, resulting in an unhealthy and unsafe environment in dormitory restrooms and showers. Second, on June 26, 1999, Bowles wrote to Harry Le Grande, UC Assistant Vice-Chancellor and Bob Jacobs, informing them he had advised Willis St. Hill, Facilities Manager of the Housing and Dining Department at UC Berkeley, that the contractor COIT was doing sub-par work under its carpet cleaning contract with the UC. For his first cause of action, Bowles alleged Regents subjected him to retaliation in the forms of unwarranted disciplinary actions,[3] restrictions on promotional opportunities, and hostile work environment on account of his whistle-blowing activities, in violation of Government Code sections 8547 and 8547.10. For his second cause of action, Bowles alleged similar acts of retaliation for his reporting of public policy violations to his government agency employer, in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5.[4]

On July 2, 2004, Regents filed a motion for summary judgment. Regents stated Bowles filed two complaints of retaliation for whistle blowing on July 12, 2000, and on January 31, 2002. Bowles pursued these through Step 2 of the grievance process, the final step in the complaint resolution process (Policy 70) for claims of retaliation related to whistle blowing. Both complaints resulted in findings adverse to Bowles that no evidence supported his assertion he had been retaliated against for whistle blowing. Regents asserted Bowles did not try to overturn either of these adverse administrative findings by writ of administrative mandamus. Regents requested summary judgment in part on Bowles' failure to exhaust his judicial remedies via administrative mandamus.

On December 8, 2004, the trial court issued its summary judgment ruling. The trial court noted Bowles did not seek writ review pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 on either of the adverse rulings on the whistle-blowing complaints. As a consequence, the trial court ruled, those adverse rulings preclude Bowles' claims of unlawful retaliation. The trial court rejected Bowles' contention the adverse rulings were not subject to writ review because they were not the result of quasi-judicial proceedings. Judgment was entered against Bowles on December 21, 2004, and this timely appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

We review the trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo, â€