In Chaudhry v. State of California (2026) 123 Cal.App.5th 690, the California Court of Appeal clarifies the limits of individual supervisor liability for whistleblower retaliation, while underscoring that employers may still be held accountable for retaliatory conduct in the workplace.

The Facts:

Farzana Chaudhry was a longtime dental assistant employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) when she began raising concerns about workplace safety. Eventually, she sued the CDCR and her supervisor, alleging retaliation for reporting her workplace safety concerns, including under California Labor Code section 1102.5.

Her allegations and her employer’s responses unfolded over the following years:

• April 2018 – Chaudhry reported to her supervisor that personal protective equipment was contaminated and filed a complaint with Cal/OSHA. 
• July 2018 – Chaudhry’s supervisor issued her a letter criticizing her job performance and management denied her the opportunity to serve as acting supervising dental assistant
• May 2019 – Chaudhry filed another safety complaint with Cal/OSHA.
• October 2019 – The CDCR suspended Chaudhry for one month without pay or benefits for unprofessional conduct.
• January 2020 – Chaudhry informed Cal/OSHA that the facility remained out of compliance, prompting an inspection.
• February 2020 – A supervising dentist accused Chaudhry of a tool discrepancy.
• March 2020 – Chaudhry’s immediate supervisor issued her a counseling record stating that her sterilization practices violated workplace rules.
• April 2020 – Chaudhry’s immediate supervisor asked her for a doctor’s note when she requested sick leave.
• May 2020 – Cal/OSHA issued the CDCR a $450 fine for a violation.
• June 2020 – Chaudhry filed another Cal/OSHA complaint, which prompted another inspection.
• December 2020 – Chaudhry is terminated.
• January 2022 – Chaudhry’s termination is overturned and she is reinstated. On her first day back, Chaudhry waits one and a half hours before receiving gate clearance.
• February 2022 – The CDCR issues another dismissal notice.
• August 2022 – Chaudhry is reinstated but involuntarily resigned on her first day back at work. 

What the Court decided:

The Court of Appeal partially reversed the judgment in favor of the CDCR, allowing Chaudhry’s whistleblower retaliation claim to proceed based on constructive discharge theory.

The Court explained that the cumulative effect of the alleged conduct including, repeated terminations, interference with the ability to perform her job, and other workplace actions, when considered together, could support a finding of constructive discharge because the conduct could create intolerable working conditions.

In evaluating Chaudhry’s constructive discharge claim, the Court rejected the argument that Chaudhry was improperly relying on earlier employment actions. The Court ruled that earlier workplace actions could provide important context for determining whether later employment decisions or an employee’s resignation, was the result of a broader pattern.

Lastly, in a case of first impression, the Court of Appeal held that individual supervisors cannot be held personally liable for retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5.  

Takeaway:

The Chaudhry decision offers three important lessons for employers:

1. A pattern of workplace conduct can matter more than a single employment decision. Individual actions, such as disciplinary measures, changes to job responsibilities, or interference with an employee’s overall ability to work, may not independently amount to unlawful conduct. However, when viewed together, a series of actions may create conditions that support a claim for constructive discharge.
   1. What to do: Employers should consider the broader context and cumulative effect of their decisions, especially when an employee has raised workplace complaints. 
2. An employee’s resignation does not always shield an employer from liability.  An employee who resigns may still have a claim for constructive discharge, if the facts support a finding that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign under similar circumstances.
   1. What to do: Employers should not assume that a resignation ends their potential liability, particularly when the employee has raised workplace complaints.
3. Individual supervisors are not personally liable for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5.  Individual supervisors cannot be held personally liable for retaliation under California’s whistleblower protection statute. However, employers may still be held liable for retaliatory conduct by their supervisors.
   1. What to do: Employers should train managers/supervisors on whistleblower protections and ensure that employment decisions involving employees who have raised complaints or concerns regarding workplace conduct, are based on well-documented, non-retaliatory and legitimate reasons.

In conclusion, employers should take a step back and consider the broader context before taking action involving an employee who has raised workplace complaints or concerns. Consulting with employment counsel can help employers evaluate potential risks, make informed decisions, and explore alternatives to help minimize legal exposure.