Hansen v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Filed December 12, 2008
publication ordered March 11, 2009
Fifth District, Cite as 2009 SOS 1496

Whistle Blower Retaliation Claim of Retired Employee Denied

The appeal was made by Douglas Hansen who worked for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as vocational instructor at the Correctional Custody Institution.

While appellant, Douglas R. Hansen, was employed by respondent, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), as a vocational instructor at the Correctional Custody Institution.

Before his retirement, Hansen was being investigated by the CDCR’s Internal Affairs office for allegation of misconduct and criminal activity.

Among the charges, include the following:

Violations of Penal Code section 289.6 (a)(3) – prohibits sexual activity with inmates

Violation of Penal Code section 4570 – prohibits unauthorized communications with inmates

The investigations continued even after Hansen had retired from the state service. Following that, CDCR agents, together with the local police, executed a warrant and searched Hansen’s residence, taking away some items.Despite that, no criminal charges were filed against him.

Following this, Hansen filed a complaint charging CDCR for retaliatory action against him as a whistleblower. He claimed that throughout his employment with the CDCR he had consistently complained of the illegal acts committed by the office, and as a result, “some employees conspired to defame him and cause him continuing damage”.

Hansen was charged with the following specific acts:

• That he had illegally smuggled firearms and communications, including deadly weapons and teargas, to inmates


• That he had illegally engaged in sexual activity

In response, CDCR filed a motion to strike the complaint as a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1 section 425.16. It argued that Hansen’s complaints arose of out of the statements and writings made before official and judicial proceedings hence it is within the “ambit of the anti-SLAPP statute”.

During hearing, the trial court found that Hansen’s causes of action arose out of activities that were protected by the anti SLAPP statute. In addition, Hansen was not able to establish that CDCR’s activities were illegal as a matter of law.

Further, the trial court held that Hansen failed to justify his allegations of whisteblower retaliation because of the following reasons:

• he was no longer a CDCR employee at the time of the alleged acts


• CDCR’s communications were protected by the litigation privilege

Accordingly, the trial court granted CDCR’s motion to strike Hansen’s complaint.

Hansen made an appeal, arguing that the trial court erred. He conceded that CDCR’s communication with the superior court regarding the issuance of the search warrant was protected speech. He further argued that he met his burden to show probability on each of the causes of action.

The Fifth District court of appeal therefore affirmed the ruling of the trial court, holding that Hansen was not able to establish that other employees were engaged in criminal or illegal activities, thus, he could not assert a claim for whistleblower retaliation.

Further, the court held that Hansen could not claim any tort liability for alleged defamatory statements as they were barred by litigation privilege. The court held that as a public entity, employer and its employees were immune from tort liability for acts done in preparation for formal judicial or administrative proceedings.