Campbell v. Regents of University of California

In Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, the California Supreme Court "addressed whether an employee of the Regents of the University of California (the Regents) must exhaust university internal administrative remedies before filing suit in superior court for retaliatory termination under either Government Code section 12653, subdivision (c), or Labor Code section 1102.5 . . . ." (Campbell, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 317.) The court explained that "the Regents may . . . exercise quasi-legislative powers," and that "'policies established by the Regents as matters of internal regulation may enjoy a status equivalent to that of state statutes.' " (Id. at p. 320.) Thus, "the Regents may create a policy for handling whistleblower claims under their power to organize and govern the University. Such a policy is treated as a statute in order to determine whether the exhaustion doctrine applies." (Id. at p. 321.) The court determined that the Regents had "established a policy to handle complaints of retaliatory dismissal for whistleblowing in an orderly manner," and that the policy may be treated "as equivalent to a statute in this action." (Id. at p. 324.) The California Supreme Court recognized that section 1102.5 was itself "silent on the exhaustion requirement." (Campbell, supra, 35 Cal.4th at p. 329.) The court cautioned, however, that "'courts should not presume the Legislature in the enactment of statutes intends to overthrow long-established principles of law unless that intention is made clearly to appear either by express declaration or by necessary implication.' " (Ibid.) The court explained that, "absent a clear indication of legislative intent, a court should refrain from inferring a statutory exemption from our settled rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies." (Id. at p. 333.) Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff, a university employee, was required to exhaust university internal administrative remedies before filing suit in superior court. (Id. at pp. 317, 333.)