CA · jury_instructions
CACI No. 4601
Protected Disclosure by State Employee—California
Whistleblower Protection Act—Essential Factual Elements (Gov.
Code, § 8547.8(c))
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/ nonbinary pronoun] made a
protected disclosure in good faith and that [name of defendant]
[discharged/specify other adverse action] [him/her/ nonbinary pronoun] as a
result. In order to establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all
of the following:
1. That [name of plaintiff] [specify protected disclosure, e.g., reported
waste, fraud, abuse, violation of law, threats to public health, bribery,
misuse of government property];
2. That [name of plaintiff]’s communication [disclosed/ [or]
demonstrated an intention to disclose] evidence of [an improper
governmental activity/ [or] a condition that could significantly
threaten the health or safety of employees or the public];
3. That [name of plaintiff] made this communication in good faith
[for the purpose of remedying the health or safety condition];
4. That [name of defendant] [discharged/ specify other adverse action]
[name of plaintiff];
5. That [name of plaintiff]’s communication was a contributing factor
in [name of defendant]’s decision to [discharge/ other adverse action]
[name of plaintiff];
6. That [name of plaintiff] was harmed; and
7. That [name of defendant]’s conduct was a substantial factor in
causing [name of plaintiff]’s harm.
New December 2014; Renumbered from CACI No. 2442 and Revised June 2015;
Revised July 2025
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- caci-2026
- Content hash
079887db02ccb7c66f6a0c48c0a2333e465c44913b99812d27a5e3758f325be7
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.