California Court Issues Novel Decision that Individual Managers and Supervisors Cannot Be Held Personally Liable for Section 1102.5 Whistleblower Retaliation

10.26.2026

On September 28, 2026, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District (“Court”) issued a decision addressing whether individual managers and supervisors may be held personally liable for retaliation claims brought under Labor Code section 1102.5 (“section 1102.5”), California’s whistleblower-protection statute. In a matter of first impression, the Court held that “a plaintiff cannot sue an individual manager or supervisor for retaliation under section 1102.5.” (Chaudhry v. State of California, 123 Cal. App. 5^th 690 (2026). The Court’s decision resolves a previously unsettled question concerning the scope of liability under section 1102.5 by confirming that individual managers and supervisors are not proper defendants in retaliation actions brought under the statute. The ruling therefore narrows the class of potential defendants, provides clearer guidance for pleading and defending section 1102.5 claims, and distinguishes an employer’s potential statutory liability from the actions of individual supervisory employees.

Background

The Plaintiff, Farzana Chaudhry, began working for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) in 2007. Most recently, Chaudhry was assigned to work as a dental assistant at the California Medical Facility (“CMF”) in Vacaville, where she provided dental care to prison inmates. In April 2018, Chaudhry informed her supervisor, Rashad Hanif, that protective equipment was contaminated. Consequently, Chaudhry filed a complaint with Cal/OSHA. In July 2018, Chaudhry was issued a letter that was critical of her job performance.

Throughout 2019 and 2020, Chaudhry filed several more complaints with Cal/OSHA about workplace safety issues. Chaudry was suspended for one month without pay in October 2019 and terminated from CMF in November 2020. Consequently, in April 2021 Chaudhry filed suit against the State of California, CDCR, and individual supervisors alleging causes of action for retaliation under section 1102.5 and common law wrongful termination. Chaudhry was reinstated to her position with CMF in 2022, but she resigned immediately upon her first day back.

In May 2023, Chaudhry filed the second amended complaint in this action, alleging retaliation under section 1102.5 and the Whistleblower Protection Act in addition to a cause of action for constructive discharge in violation of public policy. On the eve of trial, the defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings on various grounds. The trial court granted the motion. Chaudhry appealed the ruling to the appellate court.

Appellate Court’s Decision

On appeal, the Court considered an alternative argument (not presented to the trial court) that individual supervisors are not liable for retaliation under section 1102.5. The Court decided to rule on this “matter of first impression in California courts”, in affirming the trial court’s judgment on the pleadings as to individual defendants.

The Court’s analysis began with the statutory language of section 1102.5, specifically “[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information . . .” As a general rule of statutory interpretation, if the language of a statute is ambiguous, courts consider “other indica of the [l]egislature’s intent, including such extrinsic aids as legislative history and public policy.”

Here, the Court determined section 1102.5 was ambiguous, so they turned to the legislative history to aid in their interpretation of the statute. Prior to 2014, section 1102.5(b) only prohibited retaliation by an “employer.” However, in 2013, the California state legislature added the “any person acting on behalf of the employer” language to section 1102.5(b). Ultimately, the Court concluded “nothing in the legislative history suggests the [l]egislature intended to allow employees to sue individual managers or supervisors personally.”

The Court found the legislative history particularly significant when viewed in conjunction with the California Supreme Court’s reasoning in Jones v. Lodge at Torrey Pines Partnership, 42 Cal. 4th 1158, 1160 (2008). In Jones, the California Supreme Court held that FEHA’s retaliation provision did not impose personal liability on individual supervisors despite containing language that could be read broadly. Jones extended the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Reno v. Baird, 18 Cal. 4th 640, 643, 645 (1998). In Reno, the Supreme Court held that individual supervisors are not personally liable for discrimination under FEHA.

Ultimately, the Court determined that section 1102.5 was amended within an existing legal framework that traditionally places liability for retaliation on employers, and nothing in the statute’s legislative history suggested a legislative intent to expand that liability to include individual supervisors. Accordingly, and in line with the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Jones and Reno, the Court held that a plaintiff cannot sue an individual manager or supervisor for retaliation under section 1102.5.

Significance

The Court’s decision in Chaudhry significantly clarifies the scope of liability under section 1102.5. As the first published California appellate decision addressing the issue, the Court supplies a rare and unambiguous win for employers -- limiting liability in disputes involving employee whistleblower complaints to the employer alone.

More broadly, the decision suggests that courts will likely continue to apply the California Supreme Court’s framework in Jones and Reno when interpreting other retaliation statutes, absent a clear legislative indication that individual liability was intended.

Please feel free to contact the authors of this alert or your regular AALRR counsel with questions or to strategize about the impact of this decision on your agency. We would like to thank PELEPG law clerk Kelley Downes for her assistance in drafting this Alert.