UC employees may soon be accorded the same rights as other state employees in “˜whistle-blower’ situations, or those in which a person is retaliated against for reporting wrongdoing.
Currently, UC employees who are fired for reporting wrongdoing are not entitled to independent evaluation, as are other state employees. Rather, these issues are litigated by the university administrative process.
The State Judiciary Committee approved the legislation that accorded these “˜whistle-blower rights’ as outlined in the Whistle-blower Protection Act to UC employees last week.
In July of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that those people who are retaliated against for reporting wrongdoing are not entitled to take the issue to court as long as the university responds to the complaints in a timely fashion, according the senator’s press release.
The bill’s author, state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco/San Mateo, said the victim in a whistle-blowing situation, should the university fail to see the merit in the complaint, should then be able to take the matter to the courts.
“In fairness, (UC) can’t be judge and jury at the same time; there must be an administrative process,” he said.
In April of this year, UC responded to the bill (SB 219) with a letter to Yee, regarding their opposition to the bill, unless it is amended.
In the letter, UC President Mark Yudof wrote, “the University must respectfully oppose (the bill) unless it is amended to provide that an administrative determination regarding a whistle-blower retaliation complaint be binding upon all parties, including the University, unless that determination is overturned by a reviewing court.”
The letter further states that UC opposes the bill on the grounds that it bypasses the “long-standing rule” of treating administrative hearings as binding, thereby rendering the process of university litigation “meaningless.”
Yee said the letter of opposition further indicates the UC desire to decide the merit of the claim they themselves are retaliating against.
“If you’re an abuser, you can’t decide the merit of a claim,” Yee said, adding that the bill will take this “conflict of interest out of the equation.”
Though UC insists on the importance of treating its administrative decisions as binding, some think UC employees need more protection.
Scott Amey, General Counsel for The Project on Government Oversight said in the press release that “without independent evaluation, UC whistle-blowers are left out in the cold.”
The bill will next be considered by the full senate.