|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
the witnesses." (Shade Foods, Inc. v. Innovative Products Sales & Marketing, Inc. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 847, 889.)
Based on the evidence we have recounted, a jury could find defendants' wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in contributing to Lindberg's declining health and premature retirement. It could further find that Lindberg was subjected to such extreme conditions in retaliation for his whistle-blowing that he was effectively terminated. Thus, had Lindberg simply resigned in frustration without having suffered a second heart attack, the jury would have been justified in concluding that he was constructively terminated as a result of defendants' retaliation and harassment.
Acceptance of defendants' argument would require us to conclude that Lindberg's second heart attack was a superseding cause of his resignation as a matter of law. This claim is untenable. Whether an actor is relieved of liability for injury due to a superseding cause is a question of fact for the jury, unless the evidence gives rise to only one possible conclusion. (Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 508, 520-522; Martinez v. Vintage Petroleum, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 695, 702; see Lugtu v. California Highway Patrol (2001) 26 Cal.4th 703, 725-726; 6 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, ยง 967, pp. 356-358.) Lindberg testified that his mistreatment caused him tremendous stress, and there was expert testimony that the stress aggravated his heart condition. Following his second heart attack, Lindberg's doctor warned him that if he did not quit, the stress at work would kill him. On this record, a reasonable jury could conclude that the adverse conditions to which defendants subjected Lindberg greatly hastened his declining health, thereby substantially contributing to his second heart attack and ultimate retirement. The record justifies the conclusion that while Lindberg's second heart attack was the precipitating event, it was not the sole proximate cause of Lindberg's decision to retire.
The judgment is not infirm due to lack of causation.
E. Nexus Between Adverse Employment Action and Whistle-Blowing
Citing a lack of evidence that any supervisor at CDE ever expressly disapproved of Lindberg's findings, and pointing to the fact that CDE eventually did defund and take corrective action against many of the fraudulent CBO's, defendants contend there was no substantial evidence of retaliation because there was no proven nexus between the adverse employment actions Lindberg suffered and his whistle-blowing activity. In their words: "With no perceived wrongful conduct and no disapproval on that basis, there can be no motive for retaliation . . . ."
This argument is derived from the false premise that proof of retaliation requires a smoking gun, i.e., a written or oral statement by CDE or its authorized representative scolding Lindberg, expressi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Show All Case Laws California PEO
|