The California Supreme Court has resolved an inconsistency that has divided the courts as to the proper evidentiary standard necessary to prove a whistleblower retaliation claim. Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. S266001, 2022 WL 244731 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022).
Plaintiff Wallen Lawson, who was discharged by his employer PPG Architectural Finishes for alleged poor performance, brought a whistleblower claim against PPG. Lawson claimed he had uncovered and reported a supervisor’s scheme to “mis-tint” unpopular paint colors in order to avoid buyback requirements. A federal district court, applying the three-step framework of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, concluded Lawson did not meet his burden of demonstrating that PPG’s legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for discharging him was pretextual. Lawson appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which certified to the California Supreme Court the question of what evidentiary standard applies to whistleblower claims under California law.
The California appellate courts have not uniformly applied the same evidentiary standard to whistleblower retaliation claims. Some courts applied the three-part burden shifting framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas v. Green, under which (1) the employee first must establish a prima facie case of retaliation; (2) the employer then has the burden to show a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action; and (3) the burden then shifts back to the...
A nursing home run by the family of Kim Keon-hee lost the first trial in a lawsuit seeking to cancel the National Health Insurance Service's disposition to claw back about 1.4 billion won in long-...