Anthony Romero began his career with the Kern County Fire Department in October 1999 as a fireman. Over the years, he received positive performance reviews, earned certifications in fire prevention and code enforcement, and advanced through the ranks, becoming an engineer in 2009 and a captain in 2019.

In January 2020, Romero discovered that fire extinguishers on the county’s fire engines were being improperly serviced, which he believed posed a safety hazard and violated various laws and regulations. He reported these concerns verbally to his battalion chief and in writing to the deputy chief, who forwarded the complaint to the fire marshal. Shortly after, Romero received a text from the assistant fire marshal banning him from working in the fire marshal’s office or in fire prevention roles. Romero alleged this ban was retaliatory, but his internal complaints were dismissed, with the county citing “unauthorized overtime” as the reason.

In April 2020, he filed an internal relations complaint with the county’s Human Resources office, which was denied in July 2020. He escalated the issue to the Kern County Civil Service Commission in the fall of 2020 but withdrew it after assurances from the fire chief that it would be handled internally. Tensions escalated in January 2022 when Romero was notified of an investigation into possible misconduct, leading to his placement on administrative leave four months later. On October 4, 2022, the county terminated his employment, citing violations of civil service and fire department rules. Romero then filed a claim under the Government Claims Act on March 24, 2023, which the county rejected on May 8, 2023.

In September 2023, Romero sued the County of Kern in superior court, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for his whistleblower activities in violation of Labor Code sections 1102.5, 6310, and 98.6. He filed a first amended complaint the following month, reiterating these three causes of action. After answering the complaint, the county moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Romero failed to exhaust internal administrative remedies under Ordinance Code section 3.04.080 and related civil service rules, which require appealing dismissals to the Civil Service Commission.

The trial court ruled that Romero’s lawsuit was jurisdictionally barred because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing his termination to the Kern County Civil Service Commission under Ordinance 3.04.080 and rule 1700 et seq. It accepted the county’s argument that these procedures for challenging dismissals applied to Romero’s claims, regardless of their whistleblower retaliation basis.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in the published case of Romero v County of Kern -F088325 (December 2025) concluding Romero was not required to exhaust the county’s internal remedies because they did not apply to or adequately address whistleblower retaliation claims.

The appellate court examined the exhaustion doctrine, noting that administrative remedies must be exhausted as a jurisdictional prerequisite where provided by statute or internal rules, as established in cases like Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280 and Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311. However, exceptions apply if remedies are unavailable, inadequate, or outside the agency’s jurisdiction, as in Lloyd v. County of Los Angeles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 320, where whistleblower claims fell outside discrimination-focused rules.

The court analyzed Kern County’s ordinances and rules. It agreed rule 1810 et seq. (for discrimination and harassment) did not apply to whistleblower retaliation. Focusing on Ordinance 3.04.080 and rule 1700 et seq. (for dismissals), it found these provided procedures for challenging disciplinary actions but lacked “clearly defined machinery” for submitting, evaluating, and resolving whistleblower retaliation complaints specifically. The rules required the commission to address only the appointing authority’s stated grounds for dismissal, not alternative claims like retaliation. Arguments were limited to rule violations, and the commission was not obligated to investigate or make findings on retaliation. This contrasted with explicit procedures for discrimination claims and cases like Campbell, where specific whistleblower policies existed.

The court distinguished the county’s position: while an employee might raise retaliation defensively, the commission was not required to address it, failing to promote exhaustion’s purposes like factual development or judicial economy. It cited precedents where optional or non-mandatory processes do not trigger exhaustion (e.g., City of Coachella v. Riverside County Airport Land Use Com. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1277.