The California Supreme Court has expanded whistleblower protections under state law, taking a broad reading of the term “disclosure.”

From May 2010 to April 2014, A.C.R. worked as a bartender at Kolla’s, Inc., a nightclub in Orange County. In April 2014, she complained to Gonzalo Sanalla Estrada, the club’s owner, that she had not been paid wages owed for her previous three shifts of work.

Estrada responded by threatening to report A.C.R. to immigration authorities, terminating her employment and telling her never to return to the club.

In June 2014, A.C.R. filed a complaint against Estrada and Kolla’s with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) of the Department of Industrial Relations.

Following an investigation, DLSE determined that Estrada’s immigration-based threats and termination of A.C.R. violated California law. DLSE notified Estrada and Kolla’s of its proposed remedies, including payment of lost wages, reinstatement of A.C.R. and payment of civil penalties to A.C.R. and DLSE.

Estrada and Kolla’s declined to accept the proposed remedies and the Labor Commissioner then filed suit. The trial court entered an order granting in part the Labor Commissioner’s motion for default judgment but ruled against the Commissioner on the section 1102.5(b) whistleblower claim.

The court held that the Labor Commissioner did not state a valid cause of action under section 1102.5(b) because A.C.R. reported her complaints to her employer rather than to a government...

Read Full Story: https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiS2h0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmpkc3VwcmEuY29tL2xl...