|
|
Lindberg v. California Dep't of Education10/31/2005
lso evidence that Polster refused to provide Lindberg with review training while he was with Educational Options and barred him from staff meetings. In light of the considerable evidence that other CDE employees were retaliated against after they refused to ignore evidence of fraud, the jury could also conclude that Polster's actions were part of an overall plan to keep federal money flowing to the CBO's by decommissioning and harassing investigators like Lindberg.
This inference of reprisal is underscored by evidence showing that Polster also imposed retaliatory discipline against Lindberg's whistle- blowing co-worker, Lynn Bartlett, and participated in an attempt to cover up fraud and corruption by shredding documents that had been subpoenaed by the federal government. In short, the jury could find that Polster was a central player in CDE's policy of allowing fraud to continue and retaliating against whistle-blowers. The judgment against Polster was supported by substantial evidence.
V. Personal Liability As to Eastin
The jury rendered a verdict as to Eastin personally on both Lindberg's Labor Code section 1102.5 (whistle-blower retaliation) and Government Code section 8547.8 (reprisal against employee by state official) causes of action. Defendants attack the judgment against Eastin as unsupported by substantial evidence. Eastin has also filed her own brief advancing a similar argument in which she discounts the verdict as "based on speculation and conjecture."
The arguments seeking to overturn the verdict against Eastin for violating both whistle-blower statutes may be summarized as follows: (1) Lindberg's theory that Eastin was motivated to direct federal money to unscrupulous Hispanic CBO's was "far-fetched" because there was no evidence that allowing CBO's to misuse ESL funds would produce any electoral advantage for her, especially since the office of superintendent is nonpartisan; (2) there was no evidence that anyone at CDE complained about Lindberg to Eastin or demanded that action be taken against him; and (3) there was no evidence that Eastin was personally aware of Lindberg's whistle-blowing activity or harbored any personal animus towards him. None of these arguments persuade.
It was not Lindberg's burden to prove that Eastin would have secured an electoral advantage by funneling money to the CBO's or that she harbored a personal grudge against him, in order to recover for unlawful retaliation. All that was required was substantial evidence that (1) Eastin organized or set in motion a plan or strategy of funneling ESL money to CBO's regardless of whether they were defrauding the government, and (2) that one aspect of this policy was adverse employment actions against employees who interfered with that policy, including Lindberg. Such evidence was presented here.
When she put Robert Cervantes in charge of the ESL-Citizenship program, Eastin tol
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
|