In Examiners v. Superior Court (Arbuckle) (2009) 45 Cal.4th 963 the court considered the particular provisions of Government Code section 8547.8(c), the state whistleblower statute, which expressly provides a damages remedy for state employees but only after the State Personnel Board has issued findings or failed to issue findings on an administrative complaint by the employee. In Arbuckle, the court found that an employee was only required to meet the specific conditions set forth in Government Code section 8547.8(c), rather than the broader exhaustion requirements. (Arbuckle, supra, 45 Cal.4th at pp. 973-978.) Indeed, the court stated: "It is true as a general matter that writ review of an adverse administrative decision is a necessary step before pursuing other remedies that might be available. It is also generally true that if a litigant fails to take this step, and if the administrative proceeding possessed the requisite judicial character citation, the administrative decision is binding in a later civil action brought in superior court. But, as discussed, the Legislature expressly authorized a damages action in superior court for whistleblower retaliation ( 8547.8(c)), and in doing so it expressly acknowledged the existence of the parallel administrative remedy. It did not require that the board's findings be set aside by way of a mandate action; rather, it gave as the only precondition to the damages action authorized in section 8547.8(c), that a complaint be filed with the board and that the board 'issue , or fail to issue, findings.'" (Id. at pp. 975-976.)