Ramirez v. Dept. of Health Services
The question posed by this appeal and resolved by the California Supreme Court in State Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners v. Superior Court (2009) 45 Cal.4th 963 (Chiropractic Examiners) is whether an aggrieved public employee must petition for a writ of mandate before filing a civil action under the California Whistleblower Protection Act (Whistleblower Act; Gov. Code, 8547 et seq.)[1] when, as here, the employee did not request and the State Personnel Board (SPB) was not required by law to provide a quasi-judicial hearing. Plaintiff Anna Ramirez, a state employee, contends that a plain reading of section 8547.8, subdivision (c) requires an injured party to file a complaint with the SPB and allows the filing of a civil complaint once the board has issued, or failed to issue, findings. The Department of Health Services (DHS), on the other hand, insists that exhaustion of judicial remedies is a prerequisite to a civil action. The trial court sustained DHSs demurrer without leave to amend because plaintiff failed to file a petition for a writ of mandate before pursuing her whistleblower claim. Our review, therefore, is de novo.
Comments on Ramirez v. Dept. of Health Services