Jaramillo v. County of Orange

Facts

George Jaramillo was an Orange County Assistant Sheriff under Sheriff Mike Carona, whose campaign he had managed. (200 Cal.App.4th 811.) Jaramillo repeatedly warned Carona about conduct he believed was “not only . . . illegal, but . . . just flat stupid” — including Carona’s use of a sheriff’s department helicopter for personal “trysts” and his practice of “selling badges and concealed weapons permits to campaign contributors.” (Ibid.) After their relationship soured, Carona summoned Jaramillo to a March 17, 2004 meeting and, when Jaramillo refused to resign, fired him on the spot — without notice or an administrative appeal — invoking at-will waivers Jaramillo had signed in 1998 and 2000. (Ibid.) Years later, Jaramillo pleaded no contest (state) and guilty (federal) to unrelated crimes; the Ninth Circuit subsequently set aside his federal honest-services-fraud conviction. (Ibid.) Jaramillo sued the County, alleging his firing violated the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (POBRA), due process, and the whistleblower statute, Labor Code section 1102.5. (Ibid.)

Procedural history

After a court trial, the trial court awarded Jaramillo $183,688.66 in backpay (for the period from his 2004 firing to his January 2007 felony plea), $100 in POBRA penalties, and roughly $336,800 in attorney fees plus $8,400 in costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5. (200 Cal.App.4th 811.) The County appealed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Ibid.)

Issue

Was the assistant sheriff’s warning to his own superior protected whistleblowing under section 1102.5; were his blanket at-will POBRA waivers enforceable; and could his later, unrelated felony convictions bar backpay under the after-acquired-evidence doctrine or an unclean-hands defense? (200 Cal.App.4th 811.)

Holding

Reasoning

1. Reporting to the wrongdoer is protected. The court held that Jaramillo “did indeed disclos[e] information to a law enforcement agency, namely the Orange County Sheriff’s Department (in fact, the very top officer in that law enforcement agency), and the information disclose[d] violations of state and federal statutes.” (200 Cal.App.4th 811.) It rejected the County’s reliance on the federal Huffman decision, following California authority — Gardenhire v. Housing Authority (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 236 — that a report to one’s own employer is protected. (Ibid.) The court acknowledged “the anomaly” that “[a] report of wrongdoing to the very person who is engaged in the wrongdoing is covered by the statute,” but said that concern “is properly addressed to the Legislature, not this court.” (Ibid.) This reasoning anticipated the California Supreme Court’s later holding in People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 719. (Ibid.)

2. Blanket POBRA waivers are invalid. Applying County of Riverside v. Superior Court, the court held the at-will waivers were not the narrow, public-purpose-serving waivers Riverside permits; they were “in substance blanket waivers, waiving important rights (notice and administrative hearing in particular) under POBRA,” were “entirely prospective,” and would “clearly undermine POBRA” by letting an employer strip high-ranking officers of POBRA protections through an “in-the-corner at will termination.” (200 Cal.App.4th 811.)

3. After-acquired evidence and unclean hands. The court explained that the after-acquired-evidence doctrine cuts off relief only for wrongdoing that “would have resulted in the employee’s discharge in any event” and relates to the termination; the trial court had properly applied it by stopping backpay at the date of Jaramillo’s felony pleas. (200 Cal.App.4th 811.) But the County could not use those later, unrelated pleas to retroactively justify the 2004 firing, because Penal/Government Code section 1029 disqualifies an officer who “has been convicted of a felony” (past tense), and no conviction existed until 2007. (Ibid.) The unclean-hands defense failed for the same reason: “[t]he misconduct must infect the cause of action before the court,” and “[n]one of the wrongful conduct to which Jaramillo . . . admitted was related to his summary termination.” (Ibid.)

4. Injunction and fees. The court affirmed the injunction requiring the County to amend its waiver forms to state that no POBRA rights are waived, holding section 3309.5 required “appropriate injunctive . . . relief” regardless of Jaramillo’s personal standing, and upheld the private-attorney-general fee award because the litigation conferred a significant public benefit — protecting executive peace officers’ POBRA rights and deterring cover-ups of whistleblower warnings. (200 Cal.App.4th 811.)

Significance

Jaramillo is an important California decision holding that an employee’s report of illegal conduct to the very wrongdoer — including a public employee’s warning to a superior — is protected whistleblowing under Labor Code section 1102.5. It anticipated and supports the California Supreme Court’s later holding in People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 719 that a protected disclosure includes reports the recipient already knows about. The decision is also a leading authority that blanket POBRA waivers are invalid under County of Riverside v. Superior Court (2002) 27 Cal.4th 793, and that after-acquired evidence and unclean hands cannot bar relief where the later misconduct is unrelated to the challenged termination. It pairs with Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703 (the section 1102.6 burden) in the modern whistleblower framework. See the Review’s coverage of the retaliation line.

Key quotes

Jaramillo’s warning to the sheriff “fits within the literal definition of whistleblowing under Labor Code section 1102.5.” (Jaramillo, supra, 200 Cal.App.4th 811.)

“A report of wrongdoing to the very person who is engaged in the wrongdoing is covered by the statute . . . . [T]hat anomaly is properly addressed to the Legislature, not this court.” (Ibid.)

“The misconduct must infect the cause of action before the court.” (Ibid.)

Read the full opinion (California Court of Appeal — full text) →

Practice pointer

Open questions

While Jaramillo and Garcia-Brower settle that reports to the wrongdoer are protected, the boundary between protected disclosures and ordinary workplace disagreement, the scope of permissible POBRA waivers after County of Riverside, and the precise reach of the after-acquired-evidence cutoff continue to be litigated. How these principles interact with Lawson’s burden framework and with public-entity immunities remains an evolving area.