1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/03/24 - Mar 24, 2026

argument

1DCA Division 4 Oral Argument - 2026/03/24

California First District Court of Appeal 2h 1m 7 chapters transcribed 1 month ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural steps open the oral argument and how are the parties introduced?

Unknown 0:17

Good morning and please be seated. We're gonna have an unusual uh oral argument for at least the first few lines because it appears that Uh all participants on the first three lines will be appearing remotely. Uh so to the couple of you in the courtroom, you will be uh looking at the screens for the uh majority of today. So let's go ahead and call line one, which is uh Clinton, don't know quite how to pronounce this, Maelke versus Regents of the University of California, and we could um perhaps begin with appearances from Both council. I only see one person on the screen. Here we go. Okay, uh and good morning. It could we begin with the appearance for Clinton Mayel key? Please counsel for uh Dr.

Jenna Parker 1:11

Mielki. Good morning, Your Honors, Jenna Parker for Plaintiff Appellant, Dr. Mayelki. and for the regions.

Karen Bray 1:19

Good morning, Karen Bray on behalf of uh all the defendants and respondents.

Unknown 1:23

Okay. Uh and so let me turn to counsel for uh Dr. Mielke. How much, if any, of your fifteen minutes would you like to reserve for rebuttal? I'd like to reserve five minutes for rebuttal, please. Okay. And so you'll have to keep track on some clock nearby you and you may proceed at this time.

Jenna Parker 1:46

Thank you. May it please the court. I I'd like to discuss three points today and uh any one of these points would support reversal. First I want to talk about protected disclosures. Defendants never disputed for purposes of summary judgment that Dr. Majelki had made protected disclosures. As the court knows, protected disclosures don't have to be formal complaints. They don't uh require a supervisor to become aware of a formal whistleblower investigation. And the record shows here that Dr. Majelki made good faith communications, demonstrating an intent to disclose information. That evidenced in proper governmental activity. So first, respondents assume that the appellant uh made protected disclosures to Rogers on March thirteenth.

Jenna Parker 2:27

They didn't dispute this fact in their separate statement. Um additionally, on March eighteenth, um in an email to HR which defendants submitted with their motion for summary judgment, and that appears at AA seven eighty two to seven eighty four. Dr. Calcutt admitted that Dr. Majelki believed the Echo project for GE had been completed a year prior, that Dr. Mielki told Dr. Calcutt that he would approach GE to show them the work he had done, and that Dr. Majelki told her that he believed he had been made a fall guide because GE was unhappy with the lab. Um these documents both show that the appellant demonstrated an intent to disclose information that could evidence improper governmental activity, and at least Calcutta and Rogers knew about it.

Jenna Parker 3:11

Um the same March eighteenth email, um uh Calcutta asked HR how to go about terminating Dr. Malki's employment. These are textbook examples of protected disclosures of governmental or of uh improper governmental activity. And then within days on March twenty second, doctor Malki received his first ever discipline in five years, which was a verbal warning, which for some reason was memorialized in writing. And the allegations in this warning letter contradict his performance evaluation that he had received in february twenty nineteen. which indicated that all deliverables had been met, and that his performance had met and exceeded expectations. Ам, і also contradicted later assertions by doctor Calcutta that doctor Mjalky was withholding these same deliverables.

Jenna Parker 4:01

So notably there's no documented issue with Dr. Majelke prior to march eighteenth. So it's this temporal proximity combined with that express acknowledgement of the disclosures that satisfies the preponderance standards for the contributing factor analysis. And this is the point that the trial court got wrong. That we're primarily asking the court to review and get right. Um, I would also point out that in Sheer v. Regions, the court reversed where a an employee's positive performance evaluation came just three months before the tur the termination proceedings were initiated against the employee. And here that gap is just one month.