(whisblower term is crime as school employee in Ed code 44010-)
It's important to note that not all reports that you might consider to be whistle blowing are protected from retaliation by your employer/supervisor. So what exactly is it that you reported that you believe you were terminated for? And whom are you suing, the district, your supervisor individually, or someone else (no names, just position titles)?
And importantly, which exact whistleblower law are you using for the basis of your court complaint?
It can't be California Education Code (EC) § 44010 that you mentioned above because that section defines what a sex crime is for purposes of particular sections of the Education Code. It has nothing to do with whistleblowers. So that would not seem to apply to whatever it is you were terminated for.
EC § 44114(b), on the other hand, makes it an offense for a person to intentionally engage "in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a public school employee or applicant for employment with a public school employer for having made a protected disclosure." So this provision does address whistle blowing. But the definitions of the terms used in that law are important.
A "protected disclosure" is defined by EC § 44112(e) to mean:
(e) “Protected disclosure” means a good faith communication that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose information that may evidence either of the following:
(1) An improper governmental activity.
(2) Any condition that may significantly threaten the health or safety of employees or the public if the disclosure or intention to disclose was made for the purpose of remedying that condition.
An "improper governmental activity" is defined by EC § 44112(c) to mean:
(c) “Improper governmental activity” means an activity by a public school agency or by an employee that is undertaken in the performance of the employee's official duties, whether or not that activity is within the scope of his or her employment, and that meets either of the following descriptions:
(1) The activity violates a state or federal law or regulation, including, but not limited to, corruption, malfeasance, bribery, theft of government property, fraudulent claims, fraud, coercion, conversion, malicious prosecution, misuse of government property, or willful omission to perform duty.
(2) The activity is economically wasteful or involves gross misconduct, incompetency, or inefficiency.
EC § 44114(c) authorizes an employee who has been subject to such reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, etc to sue the person who engaged in those activities for compensation for damages and potentially for punitive damages, along with reimbursement of legal fees. However, before the employee may sue for such damages, he or she must have reported the incident to local law enforcement.
Then there is EC § 44113(a), which states that an "employee may not directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the official authority or influence of the employee for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or command any person for the purpose of interfering with the right of that person to disclose to an official agent matters within the scope of this article." This is separate whistle blowing provision. It covers retaliation for disclosing to an official agent "matters within the scope of this article". So it is broader. But a violation here is not a crime. Those who encountered retaliation for making or attempting to make the covered disclosure may sue the employee who engaged in the retaliation per EC §44113(d). A key thing here is that given the definition of "employee" in the EC, you cannot sue a management official for this violation, but you may sue a supervisory official. In short, a management employee who is not a supervisor cannot be sued for a violation of EC § 44113. Nor can you sue the District for this either. See Conn v. W. Placer Unified Sch. Dist., 186 Cal. App. 4th 1163, 1175, 113 Cal. Rptr. 3d 116, 125 (2010), as modified on denial of reh'g (Aug. 10, 2010).
So are you suing under EC § 44114(c), EC § 44113(d), or under some other whistleblower law?
The details of what you allege happened and what the basis of your termination was are extremely important to determining what, if any whistle blower claim you might have. That in turn affects whether you may sue the district and/or the supervisor or other person who retaliated against you individually. It will also impact what procedures you had to follow and what statute of limitations (SOL) applies.
As you hopefully can see, this is not exactly simple stuff. I agree with you that you need an attorney, and the sooner, the better. If you have a good case, you might be able to recover your attorneys fees from the defendant depending on which whistle blower claim you have. Even if you can't do that, if the case is worth enough you can get an attorney to take it on a contingent fee basis, which means the lawyer's fee is a percentage of whatever you win (if you win anything). Don't wait to see the lawyer until the court rules on the demurrer. You might find your case dead if the courts rules in favor of the demurrer. So you need to get this right while you still can, and that's going to start by consulting a lawyer who handles wrongful termination claims. If you can find one familiar with wrongful termination claims of public school teachers that would be ideal.
