The petitioner's experience illustrates the precise failure of California Government Code §12950.1.
After graduating cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa from San Francisco State University in 2001, the petitioner was subjected to prolonged workplace abuse by a senior academic administrator at a public institution. The abuse was not loud, public, or defamatory. It was covert, procedural, and systematic.
The conduct included:
Professional gatekeeping and job obstruction
Retaliatory interference with employment opportunities
Severe underpayment and excessive workload
Abuse carried out through informal channels that left no public record
The abuser openly acknowledged engaging in this conduct and was directly observed violating the law. Yet because there was no "publication" of false statements, the legal standard of "with malice" provided no protection.
The result was catastrophic: extreme stress-related illness, financial instability, and nearly losing the ability to work altogether.
Workplace bullying does not rely on defamation to cause harm. Instead, it operates through:
Authority and control over access to work
Isolation and discrediting of the target
Covert retaliation disguised as administrative decisions
Persistent psychological pressure that erodes health over time
Because these behaviors leave little formal evidences, targets are frequently disbelieved when they report abuse. Requiring proof of "malice" imposes a burden that does not align with the lived reality of bullying, ensuring that most cases never qualify for relief.
The petitioner's story is not an outliner.
According to the Workplace Bullying Institute's 2024 survey, 51% of worker report being directly affected by workplace bullying. These numbers reflect a systematic issue—not isolated incidents.
For every documented case, many more go unreported due to:
Fear of retaliation
Financial dependence on employment
Lack of faith in internal reporting systems
Awareness that the law offers no meaningful remedy
Unchecked abusive conduct leads to:
Chronic stress and stress-related illness
Anxiety, depression, and trauma
Career derailment and long-term underemployment
Increased turnover and institutional instability
When workers are pushed out through abusive means, the cost is borne not only by individuals, but by families, communities, and broader economy.
Although abusive conduct is included in mandatory training, the phrase "with malice" is not meaningfully addressed. Trainers do not explain how to identify it, apply it, or prove it.
As a result:
Workers do not understand their rights
Employers do not understand their obligations
The statute functions as a checkbox, not a safeguard
A definition that cannot be taught or implemented cannot protect.
With increasing economic volatility, the rapid adoption of AI, and the erosion of federal civil rights protections, workers are more vulnerable than ever too abusive practices designed to force them out quietly.
California has long positioned itself as a leader in labor protections. Leaving a known defect in the law uncorrected undermines that legacy.
This petition is not about expanding liability or punishing employers unfairly. It is about removing the phrase that negates the law's intent.
By eliminating "with malice", California can:
Align the law with how workplace abuse actually occurs
Restore meaning to the definition of abusive conduct
Send a clear signal that psychological and systemic abuse will not be ignored
Add Your Voice
Behind every statistic is a human being who deserved better.
By signing this petition, you stand with workers whose experiences have been dismissed—not because the abuse did not occur, but because the law failed to recognize it.
Sign the petition. Help fix the law.
We ask California legislators to sponsor and support legislation removing the phrase "with malice" so that abusive conduct can be addressed based on behavior, impact, and context—not an inapplicable legal standard.