The California Supreme Court has held that the standard for assessing whistleblower retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 is not the McDonnell Douglas test, but the more plaintiff-friendly standard articulated in Labor Code section 1102.6. Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. S266001.

Factual Background

Plaintiff Lawson worked as a territory manager for defendant PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., a paint and coatings manufacturer, from 2015 to 2017. In 2017, Lawson was placed on a performance improvement plan after receiving multiple poor evaluations. Shortly thereafter, Lawson made two anonymous complaints to PPG's central ethics hotline, claiming that his direct supervisor had ordered him to intentionally "mis-tint" slow-selling PPG paint products so that PPG would not have to buy back unsold products from retailers. A few months later, after determining that Lawson had failed to meet the goals outlined in his performance improvement plan, Lawson was terminated.

Procedural Background

Lawson filed suit in federal court, claiming that PPG had fired him because he blew the whistle on his supervisor's fraudulent mis-tinting practices in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5. The District Court granted PPG's motion for summary judgment by applying the three-part burden shifting test set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), which provides that: (1) if the employee establishes a prima facie case of retaliation,...

Read Full Story: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/california-supreme-court-adopts-6248907/