California Retaliation Case Could Help Determine the Evidentiary Standard for Claims

In recent news, the Supreme Court will consider the question of which evidentiary standard should be used for certain retaliation claims.

The Case: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The Court: Supreme Court of California

The Case No.: 19-55802

The Plaintiff: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

Wallen Lawson, the plaintiff in the case, started working as a Territory Manager for PPG in June 2015. As a Territory Manager, Lawson’s duties include merchandising products in Lowe’s Home Improvement store displays were stocked, and displays were in good condition. While working as Territory Manager, Lawson reported directly to Clarence Moore, a Regional Sales Manager. Moore oversaw approximately a dozen Territory Managers, including Lawson. Territory Manager job performance was measured based on (1) his ability to meet sales goals each month, and(2) scores received during what PPG called “Market Walks.” The Market Walk involved the Territory Manager and Regional Sales Manager visiting various stores together so the Regional Sales Manager could ascertain if Territory Managers had successfully built a relationship with the retailer.

The Allegations: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The plaintiff claims he was directed by his supervisor to manage a product in a way that fraudulently pulled a slow-selling product from inventory. The plaintiff refused and reported the situation to the PPG ethics hotline (twice). The second time Lawson made a report to the ethics hotline, there was an investigation. During that same time, Lawson began receiving poor ratings for his performance, was given a performance improvement plan, and was eventually fired.

The Defendant: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

The Defendant in the case, PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (“PPG”), manufactures paints, stains, caulks, and other products for homeowners and professionals, and sells its products to retailers such as The Home Depot, Menards, and Lowe’s.

Details of the Case: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

After the plaintiff was fired, he filed a complaint against PPG alleging that he was retaliated against as a whistleblower. After applying the McDonnell Douglas test, the trial court concluded the plaintiff failed to carry his burden to raise triable issues of fact, and the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court should have applied the evidentiary standard outlined in Section 1102.6 which would have transferred the burden of proof to the employer once the plaintiff demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the whistleblower activity was a contributing factor in the retaliatory act. The Ninth Circuit approached the Supreme Court of California with the question of which takes precedence when retaliation claims are brought pursuant to section 1102.5 of California’s Labor Code: the evidentiary standard set forth in section 1102.6 of the California Labor Code or the McDonnell Douglas test? The Supreme Court will need to determine which should be used as the relevant evidentiary standard.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss retaliation in the workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Xilinx Faces a $365 Million Retaliation Lawsuit

In recent news, Xilinx faces a $365 million retaliation lawsuit based on claims made by one of their former Senior Vice Presidents. 

The Case: Indradevi Sabrina Joseph v. Xilinx, Inc. 

The Court: Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

The Case No.: 21CV385612

The Plaintiff: Indradevi Sabrina Joseph

Sabrina Joseph, the plaintiff in the case, was the former Senior Vice President of Strategic Marketing and Communications for the semiconductor giant. The plaintiff claims retaliation and misappropriation of trade secrets. 

The Defendant: Xilinx, Inc. 

The Defendant in the case, Xilinx, is a pioneering leader in adaptive computing in the semiconductor industry located in San Jose. 

Details of the Case: Indradevi Sabrina Joseph v. Xilinx, Inc. 

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Joseph was given information about the Marketing Department employees’ compensation in November 2017. The compensation data paired with the conversations she had with the Department’s employees, indicated wide-spread sex-based pay disparities at the company, as well as a hostile work environment, and sex discrimination throughout the marketing department. Ms. Joseph responded to the problem by proposing plans to remedy the problem. However, when she mentioned her plans to rectify sex-based pay disparities in the Xilinx Marketing Department to leaders at the company and the human resource department, she was warned to drop it. She did not drop it, and instead pursued equal pay for the women in her new department. According to the claim filed, Xilinx allegedly terminated Ms. Joseph less than a month after she was hired. Joseph claims her termination was workplace retaliation.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to discuss workplace retaliation violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Did PricewaterhouseCoopers Retaliate Against a Whistleblower?

Did PricewaterhouseCoopers retaliate against a whistleblower or not? A California judge will decide.

The Case: Botta v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

The Court: U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division

The Case No.: 18-cv-02615-RS

The Plaintiff: Botta v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

Mauro Botta, the plaintiff in the case, was a former PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) auditor in Silicon Valley who filed a lawsuit against the firm. Botta alleged he was fired in retaliation for standing up to and exposing auditor misconduct at the company and for reporting that conduct to the SEC. Botta worked in the defendant’s San Jose office and claims he was fired in August 2017. He also claims he was kicked off auditing projects for two technology companies (Cavium and Harmonic) after raising flags about potential fraud. Cavium makes semiconductors used in electronics, and Harmonic Inc. offers video-streaming and broadband-related services and products. After being fired, the former auditor filed a whistleblower retaliation suit against PricewaterhouseCoopers. However, a federal judge, U.S. Magistrate Judge Alex Tse, indicated the plaintiff failed to cite a specific law or regulation that the defendant allegedly violated.

The Defendant: Botta v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

The judge is considering whether or not one of the world’s largest accounting firms broke the law when they fired one of their senior managers for blowing the whistle on PricewaterhouseCoopers allegedly “cozy” relationships with various Silicon Valley businesses for which they were handling independent audits. The defendant argued that Botta lacks the necessary proof to support his allegations. During the bench trial, PwC showed evidence Botta had a history of struggling to accept constructive feedback, and had a communication style and immature behavior that “rubbed clients the wrong way.” However, these are not the reasons cited by the defendant when firing Botta. When terminating Botta, the company cited an investigation conducted by an outside attorney in 2014 for the Cavium account. The investigation claimed Botta lied about putting a “nonexistent control” in place or any type of method to prevent accounting improprieties. Botta claims PwC is rewording his “suggestion” for implementing a control to use as a pretext for the firing.

The Question in the Case: Botta v. PricewaterhouseCoopers

The bench trial ended early (after nine days) so the judge could determine whether the actions of the defendant constituted retaliation. Botta’s legal representation insisted during trial that Botta was fired for blowing the whistle on the company’s lack of independence in auditing clients’ accounting practices. The tech companies were providing PwC large amounts of money to fulfill the independent auditing services. The plaintiff argued that it’s common sense that if an auditing employee raises an issue, and is then removed from the job per the client’s request, the company performing the independent audit is not fulfilling its obligations according to SEC standards.

Botta claims PwC violated whistleblower protections under California State Labor Code, and the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act, and that the company also violated his employment contract when they failed to provide him with three months notice before terminating his position. Botta seeks three months wages in damages, reinstatement in his position with PwC, additional damages for emotional distress and punitive damages for what Botta refers to as PwC’s reckless indifference regarding the basic rights of their employees.

If you have questions about California labor law violations or whistleblower retaliation, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Judge Determines Ex-NHLer Cannot Sue for Sexual Discrimination Simply Because He’s a Man

A former NHL player, Roenick, was fired in February 2020 for making comments in poor taste about a female co-worker during a podcast. A New York federal judge decided in June 2021 that Roenick cannot sue for sexual discrimination simply because he’s a man.

Details of the Case: Roenick v. Flood et al

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Case No.: 1:20-cv-07213

The Plaintiff: Roenick v. Flood et al

In February 2020, Roenick was fired for an off-color joke made about a female co-worker during a podcast. Roenick responded by suing Flood, NBC Sports, NBC Universal, Comcast, and 10 John Does on 12 different causes of action in July 2020. Roenick alleged he was not given the opportunity to correct his behavior, which was in violation of his contract.

The Defendant: Roenick v. Flood et al

The majority of claims made by the plaintiff in the case were dismissed by the judge in June 2021. Dismissed claims included all claims made against NBC and Comcast. Aiding and abetting claims may proceed against Flood and the various John Does since the complaint sufficiently alleged the network retaliated against the ex-NHLer by terminating him from his position shortly after the confrontation between Roenick and Flood about harassing statements Flood allegedly made to Tappen. Defendants in the case did not seek to dismiss the breach of contract claim or two gender-related retaliation claims brought under city and state laws.

The Case: Roenick v. Flood et al

Judge John P. Cronan, U.S. District Judge, dismissed the majority of Roenick’s lawsuit including all the claims made against NBC Sports and Comcast. Roenick argued that his joke on the podcast about a threesome with his wife and a co-worker, Kathryn Tappen, wasn’t any different from comments made by other NBC personalities Johnny Weir and Tara Lipinski. Roenick claims his behavior is being singled out because of the three on air personalities, Roenic, Lipinski, and Weir (who is gay), he is the only straight man. However, the judge described Roenick’s comment as “categorically different” in comparison to those made by Lipinski and Weir in an NBC skit.

If you have questions about California labor law and how it protects you from workplace retaliation and breach of contract, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Supreme Court Considers Question About Workplace Retaliation

"Does the evidentiary standard outlined in Section 1102.6 of the California Labor Code replace McDonnell Douglas test as the relevant evidentiary standard for retaliation claims brought under Section 1102.5 of California's Labor Code?" When the Ninth Circuit court certified this question to the Supreme Court of California, they opened up new possibilities that could make disposing of whistleblower retaliation claims more difficult. 

All the Details of the Case: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

Case No.: No. 19-55802

Court:  United States District Court, 9th Cir. 2020

Is the California Supreme Court About to Make Disposing of Whistleblower Retaliation Claims More Difficult? 

Many wonder if the California Supreme Court is about to make disposing of whistleblower retaliation claims more difficult. And they could be right. The Supreme Court did agree to answer the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' question regarding California law and unlawful retaliation against employees as alleged in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. 

Setting the Evidentiary Standard: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. 

The 9th Circuit's request for the California Supreme Court to answer this particular question could result in new evidentiary standards for whistleblower retaliation claims brought under California Labor Code Section 1102.5. In the Lawson case, Mr. Lawson worked as a territory manager with duties involving merchandising products to retail outlets and stocking company displays. Mr. Lawson's supervisor allegedly asked him to manage a product in a way that would fraudulently remove the slow-selling product from inventory. Mr. Lawson refused to carry out the fraudulent task and reported the situation to his employer's ethics hotline - twice. 

The Company's Response to Lawson's Report Regarding Unethical Behavior: 

The second time Lawson reported the situation to the company's ethics hotline, there was an investigation. Simultaneously, Mr. Lawson received poor performance ratings, was issued a performance improvement plan, and then terminated. Mr. Lawson claims that he was retaliated against as a whistleblower. 

What is the McDonnell Douglas Test? 

The trial applied the McDonnell Douglas test in the Lawson case. The McDonnell Douglas test employs burden-shifting between the plaintiff and the defendant in employment law cases. The test originated in connection with Title VII (the federal statute that governs discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the workplace). After using the McDonnell Douglas test to determine that the plaintiff failed to fulfill his burden to present facts that show retaliatory behavior and a causal relationship between the behavior and the adverse employment action, the trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. 

Appealing to the Ninth Circuit Court: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

In his appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, Lawson argued that the trial court should have applied the evidentiary standard outlined in California Labor Code 1102.6. It states that once a preponderance of evidence demonstrates whistleblower activity was a contributing factor in retaliatory action against an employee, the burden of proof is on the employer to show alleged actions were taken for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. In requesting the California Supreme Court consider the question, the Ninth Circuit Court pointed out three published California appellate court decisions that applied McDonnell Douglas after the amendment. This presents a contradiction between California statute and the state's court rulings. 

If you need to discuss California state labor laws or if you need to file a California workplace retaliation lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Workplace Retaliation: Claim Fails When Employees Age Discrimination Opposition Seen as Unclear

In a recent workplace retaliation case, the claim failed when a California appeals court ruled that the employer could not possibly have been aware of their former employee's actions taken to oppose the age discrimination of a co-worker at the company. 

All the Details of the Case: Susan Colborn, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Defendant

Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, Division Two

The Plaintiff, Susan Colborn, is a former employee of the Defendant, Chevron. The Plaintiff alleges she worked for Chevron from 1988 until she was terminated in March 2011. 

History of the Case: Susan Colborn v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

Colborn alleges that in January 2011, Chevron management assigned her direct report a low-performance rank - lower than what they previously agreed on. As a result, Colborn claims she contacted HR to lodge a complaint that the final ranking given to her direct report was not fair. According to the suit, the HR department advised Colborn that the performance rank would not be changed. 

Details of the Case: Susan Colborn v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.

The direct report in receipt of the allegedly unfair performance rank was supposed to be put on a performance improvement plan. However, Colborn refused to do so. She also refused to meet with HR about the issue. On February 23, 2011, Colborn received her own ranking, and it was the lowest ranking she had ever received in her history with the company (23 years of employment). On March 10, 2011, Colborn was fired. 

Lawsuit Filed Claiming Wrongful Termination and Retaliation: 

Colborn filed a lawsuit after Chevron terminated her employment. Plaintiff claimed that she was terminated in retaliation, which is a violation of California labor law. According to court documents, the Plaintiff alleged Chevron fired her because she complained that her direct report's performance ranking was discriminatory due to age. 

The Trial Court Dismissed the Complaint:

Colborn brought her retaliation claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). The Act makes it unlawful for an employer to fire an employee because they opposed an unlawful practice. However, before the case went to trial, the trial court dismissed Colborn's complaint. So she appealed. 

The Burden to Introduce Facts in FEHA Retaliation Claims: 

The California Supreme Court adopted a three-state burden-shifting test for discrimination claims, the McDonnell Douglas test. The test applies to any FEHA discrimination and retaliation claims. Under the McDonnell Douglas test, Plaintiff must produce facts that a jury could use to infer discrimination occurred in the situation. Plaintiffs must show that they engaged in activities protected by FEHA, the employer took adverse employment action against them in response, and there was a causal connection between the two. 

A Prima-Facie Case of Retaliation: 

If the Plaintiff can present facts fulfilling the three above requirements, this is known as a prima-facie case. When the Plaintiff fulfills the burden to present the necessary facts, a presumption of discrimination arises and shifts the burden of producing evidence showing there was no discrimination onto the employer who must present facts showing they acted for nondiscriminatory reasons. The Defendant in this case successfully argued that the Plaintiff did not establish a causal link as required, and that even if they did, the case should be dismissed because the employer met its burden to establish a legitimate nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. The appeals court agreed and affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss because there was no evidence to show that the employer knew that the Plaintiff's actions were based on her belief that the employer was engaging in age discrimination against her direct report. As such, a causal connection was not established. 

If you have questions about California labor law violations or how employment law protects you against labor law violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Are Whistleblower Retaliation Lawsuits More Expensive in California?

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1947 into law in September 2020 with an effective date of January 1, 2021. AB 1947 authorizes courts to award attorneys’ fees to whistleblowers who prevail in their case, making it more accessible for employees with retaliation claims to file against California employers. 

California’s Current Whistleblower Protections:

California Labor Code 1102.5 protects employees from retaliation for disclosing violations of the law, or offering testimony, information, etc. regarding a violation. Retaliation has been recognized in many forms including almost any adverse employment action that could affect the terms of employment or conditions of employment. However, it does not usually recognize personnel decisions like internal transfers as an “adverse employment action” that can be defined as retaliation.

Under the Current Law, Whistleblowers Can Seek Remedies Including:

Current legal protections for whistleblowers in California do include potentially significant consequences for employers that violate the law including back pay and benefits, payment of the employee’s actual damages, and/or civil penalties ($10,000 per violation). Under the current law, whistleblowers are not entitled to receive attorneys’ fees after winning their case under Section 1102.5. (Although some plaintiffs have successfully sought their attorneys’ fees under different statutes).

As Of January 1, 2021, Labor Code Section 1102.5 Will Authorize Award of Attorneys’ Fees:

When AB1947 goes into effect on January 1, 2021, courts will be authorized to award “reasonable” attorneys’ fees to plaintiffs who bring a successful action for a violation under Section 1102.5. The new legislation means California whistleblowers no longer need to seek an award of attorneys’ fees under different statutes or theories. As a result, California can expect to see an increase in the number of retaliation claims.

Supporters of the legislative changes argued that workplace anti-retaliation claims are the foundation for all other employee rights in the workplace (i.e., overtime pay, minimum wage, meal periods and rest breaks, workplace safety, protection from discrimination and harassment, etc.) If employees have a rational fear of termination for seeking their basic rights in the workplace, any “protection” for those rights is severely undermined. AB1947 is a protection for the “foundation” of employee rights in the workplace while also making it more financially accessible for litigants to obtain counsel to take a whistleblower retaliation case to court.

If you have questions about how to identify California labor law violations or if you need to file an employment law claim, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in any one of various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.