On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, No. S266001, __ Cal. 5th ___, 2022 Cal. Lexis 312 (Jan. 27, 2022) regarding the proof paradigm in California "whistleblower" retaliation cases. This decision increases the evidentiary burden on defendants seeking summary judgment. It also clarifies that the proof paradigm in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), does not apply to California whistleblower claims. McDonnell Douglas established a three-step burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases. The California Supreme Court took the opportunity to clarify the evidentiary burdens and noted that section 1102.6 of the California Labor Code already provides a complete description of the evidentiary burden in a whistleblower case.
Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff alleging discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USCS 2000e et seq., first must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The burden of production is then on the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employer's action. 411 U.S. at 802. After this burden has been articulated by the defendant, the plaintiff must be afforded a fair opportunity to show that the employer's stated reason for the adverse action was, in fact, a pretext. Id. at 804.
Roughly ten years after McDonnell Douglas, in...
Alec Stapp said people often overlook that the case against Elizabeth Holmes included straightforward financial fraud, specifically lying about revenue. Stapp made this observation in reference to...