A firefighter participated in several unpaid and voluntary activities with a city fire department, including the department’s Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) program, training cadre, and grant committee. The firefighter suspected that one of the department’s battalion chiefs and the fire chief were involved in a “scheme” to obtain emergency federal funds, and the firefighter reported this suspicion. The department hired an outside investigator who concluded that the firefighter’s claims were unfounded.
After the firefighter reported the alleged scheme, the firefighter was reassigned from the training cadre (along with 11 other volunteers) and the USAR program was restructured resulting in a change of his USAR title but no changes to his pay, duties, schedules or work location. The firefighter also stopped doing work for the grant committee, but his participation in any grant committee was disputed. The firefighter ultimately elected to stop participating in the USAR program.
The firefighter sued the department and the city for whistleblower retaliation and age discrimination in violation of the Labor Code and Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The department moved for summary judgment on the ground that these events regarding the firefighter’s extracurricular activities did not amount to an “adverse employment action” as a matter of law. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. The firefighter appealed.
The California Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the department and city. The Court of Appeal made a clear distinction between actions which negatively affected an employee’s official position and duties, and actions concerning “adjacent activities” which did not. The Court of Appeal agreed with LCW that the firefighter failed to show how the change in the firefighter’s extracurricular activities affected his official position and duties.