In a recent legal battle, Donald Ververka filed a whistleblower retaliation complaint against the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet). The complaint was lodged in Napa County Superior Court on October 2018, with Ververka alleging wrongful termination under Labor Code section 1102.5. This statute protects employees from retaliation for reporting unlawful activities.
Ververka's tenure as the administrator of the Yountville veterans home began in 2014 and ended abruptly in May 2017. He reported several safety and health issues at the Yountville home to both an independent state agency and his superiors at CalVet, including concerns about heating, air-conditioning, and elevator functionality. Ververka believed these conditions violated federal law. His reports culminated in a meeting with CalVet’s Secretary Vito Imbasciani in May 2017. Shortly thereafter, Russell Atterberry, CalVet’s Undersecretary, recommended Ververka’s removal to the Governor’s Office, citing poor management as the reason.
Ververka's lawsuit claimed that his termination was a direct result of his whistleblowing activities. He sought damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief under section 1102.5, attorney’s fees, and costs. However, during the trial, while the jury acknowledged that some of Ververka's disclosures were protected under section 1102.5 and were contributing factors to his removal recommendation by CalVet, they ultimately ruled in favor of CalVet. The jury concluded that CalVet would have made the same decision for legitimate reasons unrelated to retaliation.
Following this verdict, Ververka moved to vacate the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 but was denied by the trial court. On appeal, he argued that according to Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2018), an employer’s "same decision" defense should only preclude damages and backpay but not declaratory or injunctive relief or attorney’s fees if unlawful action is proven.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision and dismissed CalVet's cross-appeal as moot. They concluded that California's whistleblower statutes (§ 1102.5 et seq.) did not support Ververka's interpretation that he was entitled to declaratory relief despite CalVet proving it would have made the same employment decision independently of any retaliatory motive.
The case underscores significant interpretations of Labor Code sections 1102.5 and 1102.6 regarding employer defenses against whistleblower claims and what constitutes sufficient grounds for employee relief when mixed motives are involved in employment decisions.
The attorneys representing Donald Ververka were Barbara E. Cowan from Workplace Advocates and Allison Elhert from Elhert Hicks LLP; while Rob Bonta served as Attorney General for CalVet with Chris A. Knudsen as Senior Assistant Attorney General among others from their office representing them in this matter.
The case was presided over by Judge Victoria D. Wood in Napa County Superior Court under Case ID No: 18CV001376.