On Jan. 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., clarifying that whistleblower retaliation claims brought pursuant to Section 1102.5 of the California Labor Code must be analyzed under the more employee-friendly framework set forth in Section 1102.6 of the Labor Code, rather than the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting standard employed under federal law.

Lawson involved a former employee of PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., a paint and coatings manufacturer. After an initial positive review, PPG gave Lawson poor performance ratings, placed him on a performance improvement plan and eventually terminated his employment. Lawson filed suit against PPG in federal court, claiming that PPG fired him in violation of Section 1102.5 after he complained about purportedly fraudulent practices.

PPG moved for summary judgment under the three-part McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework that applies to retaliation claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Under that standard, an employee must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation, at which point the burden shifts to the employer to state a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action. If a legitimate reason is proffered, the burden shifts back to the employee to demonstrate, through substantial evidence, that the employer’s proffered legitimate reason is a pretext for retaliation....

Read Full Story: https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6878cfdc-a342-4a5f-bfb1-faf750...