Trevino v. Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility CA6 filed 8/21/26

Filed 8/21/26 Trevino v. Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

REYNALDO TREVINO,Plaintiff and Appellant,v.HOMELESS VETERANS EMERGENCY HOUSING FACILITY,Defendant and Respondent.
H053647(Santa Clara CountySuper. Ct. No.23CV413758)
Reynaldo Trevino claimed his employer, Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility (Housing Facility), violated Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) by retaliating against him for reporting a dangerous electrical transformer across the street from its facility. The trial court granted nonsuit on that claim after Trevino’s presentation of evidence. (See Code Civ. Proc., §581c, subd. (a).)Becausethe record lacks sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that Trevino believed he was reporting unlawful conduct, his report of the dangerous condition was not protected by section 1102.5, subdivision (b). We will affirm.
BACKGROUND
Trevino’s Complaint
Trevino’s complaint includes six causes of action: (1) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (2) sexual harassment in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov. Code, §12940); (3) retaliation for opposing FEHA violations; (4) failure to prevent and stop harassment, discrimination, and retaliation (Gov. Code, §12940); (5) whistleblower retaliation (§1102.5); and (6) failure to pay overtime (§§510, 1194).
As to the fifth cause of action, Trevino alleged that Housing Facility employed him from August 2021 until it terminated his employment on September 13, 2022. He alleged that the day before his termination, he “noticed that an electrical pole outside the facility was damaged and sparking” so he called emergency services. Emergency services shut off the power to repair the line. Irvin Goodwin, Housing Facility’s chief executive officer, fired Trevino a day after expressing frustration with Trevino’s decision to call emergency services.Claiming his termination was a violation of public policy andsection 1102.5, Trevino alleged that his termination was an act of “whistleblower retaliation” and that he “reported to supervisors, and refused to participate in, [Housing Facility]’s activities that [he] reasonably believed … would result in a violation of, or noncompliance with, state or federal regulations, statutes or Constitutional provisions.”
Trial Evidence
Trevino’s Testimony
Trevino “heard a loud crackling sound” while sitting in his office. Walking around the building to investigate, Trevino discovered that “across the street … in front of a residential house, …from the power pole to the transformer there was about a foot to a foot and a half … arc of electricity coming from the power line, the top of the power line, to the transformer.” Trevino called 911, telling them where he was, that he was safe, and where “the emergency [was] happening.” The fire department came, and Trevino pointed to the ongoing electrical problem; he had no need to further communicate with them. Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) arrived later with a cherry picker. Trevino left the scene, never having spoken to anyone from PG&E.
Trevino returned to the facility and began warning coworkers to save their work in anticipation of a power outage. Trevino had not been told that a power outage was imminent but anticipated a shutdown impacting the general area.
Trevino informed Goodwin of the impending outage and Goodwin thanked him. But when the power was turned off, Goodwin called Trevino into a meeting and expressed frustration with Trevino for making an unauthorized call that had caused power loss—resulting in lost productivity and endangering refrigerated food.
Goodwin terminated Trevino’s employment the next day. Trevino was told to surrender his key and went to Goodwin’s office. Goodwin did not answer Trevino’s questions but took Trevino’s keys and instructed Trevino to leave before Goodwin called the sheriff.
Goodwin’s Testimony
Trevino reported a sparking electrical wire across the street from the facility, causing the utility company to temporarily shut off power to the facility. Goodwin agreed that Trevino was right to contact the utility company about the sparking electrical wire and denied disciplining Trevino for doing so. What displeased Goodwin was Trevino’s inclusion of the facility’s address in his report to the utility company: Goodwin attributed the shutdown at the facility to Trevino’s decision to unnecessarily include the facility’s address. Goodwin admitted that no one from the utility company had confirmed his belief that the facility was on a different circuit than the one that was sparking.
When Goodwin tried to speak to Trevino about the decision to include Housing Facility’s address in the report, Trevino “had an attitude behind that.” After Trevino said he did not like Goodwin, Goodwin told him to “ ‘go home and chill out and come back … later.’ ” Trevino responded by throwing his keys at Goodwin, so Goodwin decided to firehim.
Nonsuit, Judgment, and Appeal
After Trevino closed his caseinchief, Housing Facility moved for nonsuit on Trevino’s fifth cause of action for violation of section 1102.5, stating that Trevino had “argued” it was “based upon [him] calling to report a sparking transformer.” Housing Facility argued that Trevino failed to establish thatwhat he reported was a violation of law.
Trevino asked the court to consider authority cited in his trial briefregarding jury instructions. In the brief, Trevino argued that his report of an“electrical [and] fire safety violation” was protected activity, but he did not identify any specific statutes, regulations, or rules he contended were violated.
After hearing argument, the trial court granted the motion because Trevino had not presented evidence of “an employer … discriminating against an employee for reporting unlawful conduct to the government” or “ ‘for reporting claims of illegal conduct by fellow employees, as well as by an employer.’ ”
The trial resulted in a verdict in Trevino’s favor on his claim for unpaid overtime, but otherwise against Trevino. The court entered judgment awarding Trevino $18,153.46 against Housing Facility for unpaid overtime plus fees and costs.Trevino timely appealed.
Discussion
“A defendant is entitled to a nonsuit if the trial court determines that, as a matter of law, the evidence presented by plaintiff is insufficient to permit a jury to find in his favor.” (Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 291 (Nally); see also Code Civ. Proc., §581c, subd. (b) [permitting nonsuit as to “some but not all of the issues involved in the action”].)
We review de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court. (Nally,supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 291; see also Joyce v. Ford Motor Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1478, 1490 [“[i]ssues of statutory interpretation are questions of law subject to de novo review”].)“ ‘We will not sustain the judgment “ ‘unless interpreting the evidence most favorably to plaintiff’s case and most strongly against the defendant and resolving all presumptions, inferences and doubts in favor of the plaintiff a judgment for the defendant is required as a matter of law.’ ” ’ [Citation.] Although ‘a judgment of nonsuit must not be reversed if plaintiff’s proof raises nothing more than speculation, suspicion, or conjecture, reversal is warranted if there is “some substance to plaintiff’s evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ.” ’ ” (Garcia-Brower v. Premier Automotive Imports of CA, LLC (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 961, 971; see also Joyce, at p. 1488 [“ ‘[n]onsuit may be granted only if there is no substantial evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ’ ”].)
We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Housing Facility was entitled to a nonsuit on Trevino’s claim for a violation of section 1102.5, subdivision (b) because Trevino’s evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to permit a jury to find that he actually believed that he was reporting a violation of or noncompliance with a statute, rule, or regulation when he reported the sparking transformer.
“Section 1102.5 is ‘California’s general whistleblower statute.’ ” (Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1251, 1259.)Subdivision (b) prohibits retaliation “against an employee for disclosing information … to a government or law enforcement agency … if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.” “This provision ‘ “reflects the broad public policy interest in encouraging workplace whistle-blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.” ’ ” (Contreras, at p. 1259.) Its protections require both a subjective belief in the unlawfulness of the act reported and the objective reasonableness of that belief: “Section 1102.5(b) … ‘does not protect employees who do not believe or who unreasonably believe that the information they are disclosing shows a violation of the law.’ ” (Contreras, at pp. 1259–1260; see also People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 719, 731 (Kolla’s).)
We need not question the objective reasonableness or subjective good faith of Trevino’s belief that the transformer presented an unsafe condition and a threat to public safety. But the whistleblowing activity that section 1102.5 is designed to protect requires more than this. Trevino’s statutory claim requires his reasonable belief that he was reporting a legal violation.SoTrevino’s reliance on authority concerning wrongful termination in violation of public policy does not help him. (SeeGreen v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 71;City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143, 1158–1161;Gantt v. Sentry Ins. (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1085;Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, 178.) We are not asked to decide whether and when termination for reporting a safety hazard violates public policy, only whether Trevino’s evidence would support areasonable jury finding that Housing Facility violated section 1102.5, subdivision (b).
Trevino introducedno evidence that he believed what he was reporting amounted to a legal violation.In a trial brief, Trevino argued that the condition he reported implicated specified codes and regulations, and he asked the court to instruct the jury that a “power line or transformer” that is “sparking or arcing” is “in violation of electrical or fire safety regulations.” But despite his litigation position, Trevino never testified that, when he made the report, he believed that he was reporting a violation of law.Nor does he advance such a claim on appeal. Indeed, in his appellate briefing he identifies no statute, rule, or regulation that he believedmay have been violated.
Instead, Trevino maintains that his subjective understanding of the law is irrelevant because the statute requires only “reasonable cause to believe” that the information he disclosed in turn disclosed a legal violation, not an actual subjective belief that the information disclosed a legal violation or a subjective understanding of the law. (See §1102.5, subd. (b).)But our Supreme Court has interpreted the statute to protect only employees who actually believe that the information they are disclosing shows a violation of law. (Kolla’s, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 731.) We follow our Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation.
Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.

LIE, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

WILSON, J.

CHUNG,J.

Trevino v. Homeless Veterans Emergency Housing Facility
H053647