On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court provided clarification in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. to lower courts reviewing whistleblower retaliation claims. In what it calls an “unsurprising” decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the framework prescribed by California Labor Code section 1102.6, rather than the McDonnell Douglas test, must be used in whistleblower claim evaluations.

The impact of this decision is that employees will have a lower burden to meet to demonstrate that their alleged whistleblower activities resulted in an adverse employment action, while employers will have to meet a higher burden requiring them to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that they did not retaliate based on the employee’s activities.

IN DEPTH

Labor Code section 1102.6 requires that an employee bringing claims under Labor Code section 1102.5 for whistleblowing activities¹ shows by a preponderance of the evidence that retaliation was a contributing factor in the employer’s adverse employment action. The burden then shifts to the employer to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected under Labor Code section 1102.5.

By contrast, the McDonnell Douglas test required a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case by proving that they engaged in protected activity, that they were thereafter subjected to an adverse...

Read Full Story: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/california-supreme-court-decision-places...