Executive Summary

Our Labor & Employment Group reviews a California Supreme Court decision that makes it more difficult for employers to dispose of whistleblower retaliation claims.

• The case centers on the proper method for presenting and evaluating a claim of whistleblower retaliation
• The state Labor Code, and not the U.S. Supreme Court's McDonnell Douglas framework, applies
• Employers should review their antiretaliation policies

On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case of critical interest to employers defending claims of whistleblower retaliation. In Wallen Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes Inc., No. S266001, the court voted unanimously to apply a more lenient evidentiary standard prescribed under state law when evaluating a claim of whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code Section 1102.5 instead of the burden-shifting test applied in federal discrimination cases.

Before the case reached the California Supreme Court, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held for PPG after determining that the McDonnell Douglas test applied to the litigation. Under that approach, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination or retaliation and PPG need only show a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for firing the plaintiff in order to prevail. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff claimed the court should have instead applied the framework set out in Labor Code Section 1102.6,...

Read Full Story: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/whistleblowing/1156118/california-supreme...