The California Supreme Court just made things a bit more difficult for employers by lowering the bar and making it easier for disgruntled employees and ex-employees to bring state whistleblower claims against businesses. The court’s January 27 decision in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. may have significant ramifications on how employers defend against whistleblower claims in California. What do you need to know about this decision and what should you do in response?

Background

For decades, California courts have grappled over how a plaintiff employee must prove whistleblower retaliation under California’s Whistleblower Act (found at Labor Code section 1102.5). Unfortunately, they have applied different frameworks on an inconsistent basis when reviewing these claims.

• Some have applied the so-called McDonnell Douglas three-prong test used in deciding whether a plaintiff has sufficiently proven discrimination to prevail in a whistleblower claim.
• Others have used a test contained in section 1102.6 of the Act itself, which is in some ways less onerous for employees. Courts applying this test say that plaintiffs must only show by a “preponderance of the evidence” that the alleged retaliation was a “contributing factor” in the employer’s decision to terminate or otherwise discipline the employee.

Facts of the Case

This case stems from an employee who worked for PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., a paint and coating manufacturer. According to Wallen Lawson, his...

Read Full Story: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/california-supreme-court-lowers-the-bar-300...