On Jan. 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. S266001, 2022 WL 244731 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022), clarifying the legal standard for whistleblower retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 (“Section 1102.5”). Importantly, the Court’s ruling shifts the evidentiary burdens for these claims, making it more important than ever that employers document the reasons for termination, particularly when employee complaints are involved.
The California Legislature enacted section 1102.5 in 1984 to protect whistleblowing employees from retaliation. At the time, however, the Legislature provided no guidance for how to prove such claims in court. To fill that gap, California courts borrowed the familiar federal burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). This test places the initial burden on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence. If the plaintiff carries that burden, the burden of production shifts to the defendant to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. If the defendant carries its burden, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer’s stated reason was pretextual.
California courts applied the McDonnell Douglas ...
A former Tasmanian nurse has had her registration cancelled after a tribunal found she falsely claimed qualifications when applying for paramedic and senior nursing jobs. In a decision handed down...