Can California Truck Drivers Sue for Retaliation After Reporting Food Safety and Workplace Safety Violations to Cal/OSHA?

Yes — and a $52 million jury verdict against Sysco Riverside sends a clear message that California employers who punish workers for reporting dangerous conditions do so at extraordinary financial risk. Five former Sysco drivers and yard workers spent years raising safety concerns their supervisors dismissed. When those workers were pushed out or fired, they took their case to a Los Angeles jury — and won.

Case: Williams, et al. v. Sysco Riverside, Inc.

Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Case No.: 20STCV18692

Get to Know the Plaintiffs: Williams v. Sysco Riverside

The five plaintiffs in this case are former employees of Sysco Riverside, Inc. who worked primarily as drivers and yard personnel — also called spotters — at Sysco's food distribution facility in Riverside, California. Several had worked there for years; a few for decades. Over the course of their employment, they raised concerns about what they believed were dangerous and illegal practices at the Riverside facility. Those concerns included workplace safety issues in the yard, food safety violations in how perishable products were handled, and time and record-keeping practices they believed were unlawful. After raising those concerns (including reports to Cal/OSHA and the California Labor Commissioner) the plaintiffs allege they were subjected to a campaign of hostility and retaliation that ultimately ended their employment.

Get to Know the Defendant: Williams v. Sysco Riverside

Sysco Riverside, Inc. is a subsidiary of Sysco Corp. (NYSE: SYY), one of the nation's largest food distribution companies, which sells and delivers food products to restaurants, healthcare facilities, stadiums, and other commercial operations throughout the country. The Riverside facility where the plaintiffs worked serves customers throughout the Southern California region. Sysco maintained at trial that the plaintiffs' terminations or departures were based on legitimate performance-related reasons, including alleged misconduct, poor performance, sleeping on the job, and theft of company time. The jury rejected that defense.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

The plaintiffs' complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in May 2020, alleged whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination under California Labor Code Section 1102.5. According to the complaint and trial testimony:

● Managers required drivers to speed through the yard at unsafe speeds, creating dangerous conditions for workers on foot

● Perishable food products were being loaded into trailers at temperatures of up to 70 degrees — well above the required safe threshold of 40 degrees — creating food safety risks for consumers and legal violations

● Pre-trip safety inspections were required to be completed in 20 minutes, which the plaintiffs said was impossible without bypassing actual safety checks, forcing them to use "cheat sheets" to create the appearance of compliance

● Workers reported these concerns internally and also reached out to regulators including Cal/OSHA and the California Labor Commissioner

● After raising these concerns, the plaintiffs were subjected to what they described as a culture of intimidation: increased scrutiny, hostile treatment by supervisors, and adverse employment actions

● Workers who didn't resign under the pressure were eventually fired — for reasons the plaintiffs say were manufactured

● The jury agreed with the plaintiffs on all counts, returning a verdict of $31 million in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages — a total of $52 million — in favor of all five plaintiffs

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central legal question was whether the plaintiffs were terminated or forced out because they reported illegal and dangerous practices or whether the terminations were based on the legitimate performance and misconduct reasons Sysco asserted. The jury sided entirely with the plaintiffs, finding that the workers' safety reports (not their performance) were the real reason Sysco pushed them out. The $21 million punitive damages award reflected the jury's finding that Sysco's conduct warranted punishment beyond compensatory damages; though Sysco announced plans to challenge the verdict.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

This is a California case decided by a California jury under California law, and it stands as one of the most significant whistleblower verdicts in the state's recent history.

● California Labor Code Section 1102.5 protects employees who report what they reasonably believe are violations of law to supervisors, coworkers with investigative authority, or external agencies — including Cal/OSHA and the Labor Commissioner

● The verdict demonstrates that California juries take whistleblower retaliation seriously, particularly when the safety concerns involve risks to both workers and the public

● Workers in transportation, food distribution, logistics, and related industries should know that reporting violations to regulators is legally protected activity — and that retaliation for those reports can result in substantial liability for the employer

● The case also illustrates the importance of documenting safety concerns in writing before they escalate: written reports to supervisors, Cal/OSHA, and the Labor Commissioner create a clear record that protected activity occurred

A Brief Overview of the Case

● Over multiple years during employment: Five Sysco Riverside drivers and yard workers raise concerns about unsafe yard conditions, food safety violations, and falsified safety records; concerns are raised internally and reported to Cal/OSHA and the California Labor Commissioner

● After reporting: Plaintiffs allege a culture of retaliation develops — hostile treatment from supervisors, increased scrutiny, and adverse employment actions

● Some plaintiffs resign under pressure; others are terminated for reasons they characterize as pretextual

● May 15, 2020: Plaintiffs file their lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. 20STCV18692) alleging whistleblower retaliation and wrongful termination

● November 2025: Case proceeds to jury trial before a Santa Monica Superior Court jury

● February 2026: Jury returns a unanimous verdict of $31 million in compensatory damages and $21 million in punitive damages — a total of $52 million — in favor of all five plaintiffs; Sysco announces plans to challenge the verdict

FAQs: Williams v. Sysco Riverside

Q: What is Labor Code Section 1102.5 and what does it protect?

A: California Labor Code Section 1102.5 is the state's primary whistleblower protection law. It prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who disclose information about what they reasonably believe is a violation of state or federal law, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.

Q: Can I report safety concerns to Cal/OSHA and be protected from retaliation?

A: Yes. Reporting workplace safety concerns to Cal/OSHA is a protected activity under California law, and an employer may not retaliate against you for making that report. If you experience adverse employment actions after reporting to Cal/OSHA, you may have a claim for whistleblower retaliation.

Q: What counts as retaliation under California whistleblower law?

A: Retaliation includes any adverse employment action taken because you engaged in protected activity: reporting a violation, cooperating with an investigation, or refusing to participate in conduct you believe is illegal. Adverse actions include termination, demotion, reduced hours, hostile treatment, and constructive discharge.

Q: What is constructive discharge?

A: Constructive discharge occurs when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable — often through sustained hostility or retaliation — that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign. In California, constructive discharge can be treated the same as wrongful termination for purposes of retaliation claims.

Q: Do I need to prove the safety violations actually existed to win a whistleblower retaliation claim?

A: Not necessarily. Under California law, you generally need to show that you had a reasonable belief that a violation occurred and that you reported it in good faith — not that the violation was ultimately proven. The focus is on your protected activity and the employer's retaliatory response.

Q: What should I do if I have reported a safety concern at work and believe I am facing retaliation?

A: Document everything: when you made the report, who received it, any written communications, and the timing and nature of any adverse treatment that followed. File your reports in writing whenever possible so you have a paper trail. Filing deadlines for retaliation claims apply, so getting legal advice sooner rather than later can make a real difference.

Were You Retaliated Against for Reporting a Safety or Legal Violation at Work?

Williams v. Sysco Riverside demonstrates that California workers who speak up about dangerous conditions have powerful legal protections — and that juries will hold employers accountable when they choose retaliation over responsibility. If you were terminated, pushed out, or treated adversely after reporting a workplace safety or legal violation, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Does California's Whistleblower Law Protect Workers Who Reported a Violation They Didn't Fully Understand?

Yes — and a California appeals court ruling in a produce company case makes that protection explicit. An employee who acted on a good-faith, reasonable belief that his employer was breaking the law is protected from retaliation under Labor Code Section 1102.5, even if his understanding of the law turned out to be mistaken. The decision is a significant win for California workers without formal legal training who speak up about workplace violations.

Case: Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc.

Court: California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One

Case No.: D085440

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce

Manuel Contreras worked in the sanitation department at Green Thumb Produce, Inc. While employed there, Contreras noticed that he was being paid less than coworkers who he believed were performing similar duties. Unsure of his legal rights, he took a step that most employers should applaud: he researched the issue. He contacted the California Labor Commissioner's Office, where he spoke with a deputy labor commissioner who told him there might be a violation of the California Equal Pay Act and directed him to the Labor Commissioner's website for additional information. Contreras reviewed the FAQ document posted there — which was itself incomplete and ambiguous — and formed the belief that his employer was breaking the law. He printed out the Labor Commissioner's FAQ and brought it, along with his concerns, to his employer's human resources department. Shortly after that meeting, Green Thumb terminated him, citing violations of company policy.

Get to Know the Defendant: Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce

Green Thumb Produce, Inc. is a produce company operating in California whose sanitation and production employees are subject to California's Labor Code wage and hour requirements. After Contreras reported his pay concerns to HR, the company terminated his employment. At trial, Green Thumb argued that Contreras's protection under Labor Code Section 1102.5 should not apply because his belief that the Equal Pay Act was being violated was legally mistaken — the EPA only prohibits pay disparities based on sex, race, or ethnicity, and Contreras had not alleged that his lower pay was based on any of those protected characteristics.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

Contreras filed suit in Riverside County Superior Court alleging whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code Section 1102.5(b), along with additional claims. According to the complaint and subsequent proceedings:

● Contreras noticed he was paid less than coworkers performing similar work and, in good faith, believed this constituted a violation of the California Equal Pay Act

● After receiving guidance from a deputy labor commissioner suggesting a potential violation existed, Contreras presented his concerns — along with the official FAQ — to human resources

● Green Thumb terminated his employment shortly after he raised the concern, citing a company policy violation

● A jury found in Contreras's favor on all claims, awarding more than $182,000 in damages

● The trial court then granted Green Thumb's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the whistleblower claim, reasoning that because Contreras had misunderstood the EPA, he lacked a legally sound basis for his report

● The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling and restored the jury's verdict

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central legal question was whether Labor Code Section 1102.5(b) requires an employee to be legally correct about the alleged violation they report — or whether a reasonable, good-faith belief that the law was being broken is sufficient. The Court of Appeal held clearly that a reasonable belief is enough, and that whether a belief was objectively reasonable is a question for a jury to decide, not a matter for a judge to resolve as a question of law. The court emphasized that Contreras — a worker with a 10th-grade education — had not simply invented a concern: he had been told by a government official that there might be a violation, and he had reviewed an official government FAQ that was itself incomplete and ambiguous. A jury of his peers reviewed all of this and found his belief was reasonable. The Court of Appeal restored the jury's verdict.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

While this case was filed in Riverside County, it interprets a California statute that applies statewide — Labor Code Section 1102.5 — and its implications extend to workers across California in every industry.

● California whistleblower law is designed to encourage employees to report suspected violations without fear of retaliation — including employees who are not lawyers, who may not understand every detail of the law they believe is being broken

● The ruling confirms that the relevant standard is what a reasonable layperson in the employee's position would believe — not what a judge or attorney with legal training would conclude after careful review

● This is especially important for lower-wage workers, workers with limited English proficiency or formal education, and workers who rely on government agencies and official materials for guidance on their rights

● The decision also highlights a practical point: employees who receive incomplete or ambiguous guidance from official government sources — like the Labor Commissioner's FAQ in this case — cannot be penalized for relying on it in good faith

A Brief Overview of the Case

● During employment: Contreras notices he is being paid less than coworkers performing similar work; contacts the California Labor Commissioner's Office and is told by a deputy there may be a violation

● Contreras reports to HR: He brings his concerns and the Labor Commissioner's FAQ to Green Thumb's human resources department

● Shortly after: Green Thumb terminates Contreras's employment, citing a company policy violation

● Trial: Contreras files suit in Riverside County Superior Court; a jury finds in his favor on all claims and awards more than $182,000 in damages

● Post-trial: Green Thumb moves for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the whistleblower claim; the trial court grants the motion, finding Contreras's legal interpretation was wrong and therefore he lacked "reasonable cause" to believe a violation occurred

● December 15, 2025: The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One (Case No. D085440), reverses the trial court, reinstates the jury's verdict, and holds that a good-faith, reasonable belief — even a legally mistaken one — is sufficient for whistleblower protection under Labor Code Section 1102.5(b)

FAQs: Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce

Q: What is Labor Code Section 1102.5 and who does it protect?

A: California Labor Code Section 1102.5 is the state's primary whistleblower protection statute. It prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report, or who the employer believes may report, violations of state or federal law to a supervisor, another employee with authority to investigate, or a government agency. It applies to virtually all California employees regardless of industry or position.

Q: Does a California employee have to be right about the law to be protected as a whistleblower?

A: No. The Court of Appeal in Contreras made clear that Section 1102.5(b) protects employees who act on a reasonable, good-faith belief that a law was being violated — even if that belief turns out to be legally incorrect.

Q: What does "reasonable cause to believe" mean in the context of whistleblower law?

A: It means the employee's belief must be one that a reasonable person in the same circumstances — with the same information and the same level of legal knowledge — could have formed. It is not evaluated from the perspective of a lawyer or a judge. Whether a belief was reasonable is generally a question of fact for a jury to decide.

Q: Can I report a wage concern to HR and be protected from retaliation?

A: Yes. Reporting wage concerns to a supervisor or a human resources representative qualifies as protected activity under Labor Code Section 1102.5, as long as you have reasonable cause to believe a violation occurred. You do not need to report to an outside agency to be protected.

Q: What should I do if I was fired after reporting a wage or labor law concern at work?

A: Document the timeline of events: when you raised your concern, who you spoke to, what was said, and when the adverse action followed. The closer in time the termination follows the complaint, the stronger the circumstantial evidence of retaliation. Legal counsel can help you evaluate your options under Section 1102.5 and other applicable California protections.

Q: Is there a time limit for bringing a whistleblower retaliation claim in California?

A: Yes. California Labor Code Section 1102.5 claims generally have a three-year statute of limitations under Code of Civil Procedure Section 338. Other whistleblower statutes may have different time limits. Acting promptly after experiencing retaliation is important to preserve your rights.

Were You Fired for Reporting a Workplace Concern?

Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce shows that California's whistleblower protections are built for real workers — not just lawyers — and that good-faith reporting of suspected violations is protected even when the legal analysis is imperfect. If you were terminated or retaliated against after raising a concern about wages, safety, or any other workplace violation, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Can a Long-Term California Employee Prove Age Discrimination Even After Being Fired for an Alleged Performance Violation?

Yes — and a Los Angeles jury's verdict in Joy Slagel's case against Liberty Mutual Insurance demonstrates just how seriously California courts treat the pattern of pushing out older, long-tenured employees in favor of younger workers. After a multi-week trial, a jury found Liberty Mutual had engaged in age harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. The $20 million compensatory verdict that emerged from that finding stands as one of California's most significant age discrimination awards in recent memory.

Case: Slagel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al.

Court: Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles

Case No.: BC648246

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Slagel v. Liberty Mutual

Joy Slagel began working at Liberty Mutual in 1985, at age 19, and spent more than 30 years with the company — ultimately working as a senior workers' compensation claims adjuster handling major accounts, including Disney. Her performance reviews consistently reflected strong work through most of her tenure. In 2012, a new regional claims manager took over her department, and Slagel alleges the workplace began to change dramatically. She observed a pattern she believed pointed to age-based decision-making — almost all employees over 40 in her region were either fired or pressured to leave in the years that followed. Slagel raised complaints about what she was observing. Liberty Mutual investigated her in response. When she returned from a medical leave she had taken because of workplace-related stress, she was fired the same day. The company's stated reason: alleged dishonesty and falsification of records tied to a social media investigation for a Disney workers' compensation account. Slagel maintained the issue was a misunderstanding rooted in an earlier undocumented directive from her supervisor.

Get to Know the Defendant: Slagel v. Liberty Mutual

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company is one of the largest property and casualty insurers in the United States, with operations across the country including a major claims operation in the Los Angeles area. The Glendale claims department at the center of this case employed approximately 120 workers; Slagel alleges that by the time she was terminated, only two of those employees were over the age of 40. The company maintained at trial that Slagel's termination was based entirely on legitimate performance reasons — specifically, her handling of the Disney social media investigation — and denied any discriminatory intent.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

Slagel's lawsuit, originally filed in January 2017, alleged that Liberty Mutual's new regional management systematically targeted older employees for termination while favoring younger workers — and then retaliated against Slagel when she raised internal concerns about the pattern. According to the complaint and trial evidence:

• Following the arrival of a new regional claims manager in 2012, the composition of the Glendale department shifted dramatically — from roughly 120 employees to a workforce where nearly all workers over 40 had been fired or resigned under pressure within a few years

• Slagel received her first "needs improvement" performance rating in 2015 after years of positive reviews, while simultaneously receiving a customer service award for her handling of a major client account

• After Slagel raised internal complaints about what she believed was age-based decision-making, Liberty Mutual initiated an investigation into her conduct

• She took a medical leave due to high blood pressure caused by workplace stress; on the day she returned, she was terminated

• Liberty Mutual replaced her with a male employee in his late twenties

• The jury found that the company's stated reason for termination — the social media investigation issue — was a pretext for conduct motivated by her age and her internal complaints

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central questions were whether Liberty Mutual terminated Slagel because of her age and in retaliation for raising discrimination complaints — or whether her termination was based on the legitimate performance reason the company cited. A Los Angeles jury answered those questions in Slagel's favor following a multi-week trial in late 2025. The jury awarded $20 million in compensatory damages for past and future emotional distress, and an additional $83 million in punitive damages. However, on May 12, 2026, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Jon R. Takasugi vacated the entire $83 million punitive damages award, finding the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support a finding of corporate malice at the level required to sustain that award under California law. The judge denied Liberty Mutual's request for a new trial and left the underlying $20 million compensatory verdict intact, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's finding of discriminatory and retaliatory motive.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

This is a California case decided under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act, and it sends a meaningful message to employers and employees alike about how California courts treat age discrimination.

• The case reinforces that California's FEHA protects employees from age discrimination from the moment they turn 40 — and that decades of loyal service does not insulate an employee from discriminatory treatment when management changes

• It demonstrates that an employer's stated reason for termination can be challenged as a pretext when the circumstances — including suspicious timing, inconsistent treatment of younger employees, and a pattern of targeting older workers — tell a different story

• The post-trial reduction of the punitive damages award is an important reminder that even in cases where a jury finds an employer acted wrongfully, punitive damages remain subject to meaningful judicial review in California

• The $20 million compensatory award that stands reflects the very real financial and emotional harm that long-term employees can suffer when age discrimination ends a career they spent decades building

A Brief Overview of the Case

• 1985: Joy Slagel begins her career at Liberty Mutual at age 19

• 2012: A new regional claims manager takes over Slagel's department; Slagel begins observing what she believes is a pattern of age-based decision-making

• 2015: Slagel receives her first "needs improvement" rating, while also receiving a customer service award

• 2015–2016: Slagel raises internal complaints about what she perceives as discrimination; Liberty Mutual investigates her

• 2016: Slagel takes medical leave for high blood pressure caused by workplace stress; she is terminated on the day she returns

• January 26, 2017: Slagel files her lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court (Case No. BC648246)

• 2023: The California Court of Appeal reverses a prior summary judgment, reinstating Slagel's claims and finding triable issues of age discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and pretext

• Late 2025: Case proceeds to jury trial before Judge Jon R. Takasugi in Los Angeles

• December 5, 2025: Jury returns a verdict of $20 million in compensatory damages and $83 million in punitive damages

• May 12, 2026: Judge Takasugi issues a post-trial ruling vacating the entire $83 million punitive damages award while leaving the $20 million compensatory verdict intact; Liberty Mutual's request for a new trial is denied

FAQs: Slagel v. Liberty Mutual

Q: At what age does California law protect employees from age discrimination?

A: California's Fair Employment and Housing Act protects employees from age discrimination once they reach age 40. This applies to all aspects of employment, including hiring, promotion, compensation, and termination.

Q: What is pretext, and how does it apply in an age discrimination case?

A: Pretext means that an employer's stated reason for a termination or adverse action is not the real reason — it is a cover for an unlawful motive. In Slagel's case, the jury found that Liberty Mutual's explanation (the Disney social media investigation) was pretextual, and that the real reason for her termination was her age and her discrimination complaints.

Q: Can a California employer be held liable for age discrimination even if it claims there was a legitimate performance reason for termination?

A: Yes. California courts look at the totality of the circumstances, including patterns of treatment of older versus younger employees, suspicious timing, inconsistent application of policies, and other evidence that suggests the stated reason is not the true one.

Q: What are compensatory damages in an employment discrimination case?

A: Compensatory damages are designed to compensate the plaintiff for the actual harm she suffered — in this case, the emotional distress resulting from the discrimination and retaliation. They are distinct from punitive damages, which are meant to punish the employer for egregious conduct.

Q: Why were the punitive damages reduced in this case?

A: California courts review large punitive damages awards after trial to determine whether the evidence supports the amount. In this case, Judge Takasugi found that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish corporate malice at the level required to sustain the $83 million punitive award, and vacated it. The $20 million compensatory verdict was separately supported by substantial evidence and was left intact.

Q: What should I do if I believe I am being pushed out of my job because of my age?

A: Document patterns of treatment that suggest age is a factor — including differential treatment of younger employees, comments about age or retirement, sudden changes in performance reviews after years of positive feedback, or exclusion from opportunities given to younger colleagues. An employment lawyer can evaluate your options and advise you on California's filing deadlines for FEHA claims.

Facing Age Discrimination or Retaliation at Work?

Slagel v. Liberty Mutual shows how far California law will go to protect long-term employees from being pushed out because of their age. If you believe you have been discriminated against, harassed, or retaliated against because of your age, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

CSU Professors' Retaliation Claims Survive University's Anti-SLAPP Challenge

Two married professors say they were harassed and discriminated against, then pushed out of their jobs after speaking up; and when California State University tried to strike their retaliation claims using an anti-SLAPP motion, a California appeals court refused.

Case: Hyewon Pechkis et al. v. Trustees of the California State University

Court: California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District

Case No.: C103742 (Butte County Superior Court No. 24CV04200)

Get to Know the Plaintiffs: Pechkis v. Trustees of CSU

Hyewon Pechkis and Joseph Pechkis are a married couple who worked as tenured physics professors at California State University, Chico. Hyewon alleges she was harassed and discriminated against by her department chair based on gender bias and her Korean ancestry and national origin. Despite reporting the conduct to university administration, the couple alleges the university did not intervene, and Hyewon suffered serious mental health consequences that led her doctor to recommend she not work in the same environment as the chair. The couple ultimately resigned and accepted positions at another university.

Get to Know the Defendant: Pechkis v. Trustees of CSU

The Trustees of the California State University govern the CSU system, which includes California State University, Chico, where the Pechkises were employed.

What Are the Allegations in the Complaint?

The Pechkises' complaint, filed in December 2024, asserts six causes of action against CSU. According to the case:

● Hyewon was subjected to harassment and discrimination by her department chair based on perceived gender bias and her Korean ancestry and national origin

● The university failed to intervene despite the couple's reports to administration

● The situation caused serious mental health consequences for Hyewon, with her doctor recommending she avoid working in the same environment as the chair

● The university's inaction allegedly forced both professors to resign and take positions elsewhere

● After their resignation, the university initiated an investigation into Hyewon for an alleged student privacy law violation, which the couple characterizes as retaliatory

● There were also delays in transferring the couple's lab equipment following their resignation

What Was the Main Question in the Case?

The central legal question was whether CSU met its burden under California's anti-SLAPP statute to show that the Pechkises' retaliation claims arose entirely from legally protected activity, such as communications made during an official investigation. The Court of Appeal held that CSU had not met that burden, applying the framework from Bonni v. St. Joseph Health System, which requires a claim-by-claim analysis rather than a broad argument that claims are merely "based in part" on protected conduct.

Why Does the Case Matter to California Employees?

This is a California case decided under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the state's anti-SLAPP statute, and it has meaningful implications for public employees statewide.

● The ruling limits how broadly public employers, including universities, can use anti-SLAPP motions to strike retaliation claims early in litigation

● It reinforces that courts must analyze each specific claim individually, rather than allowing a defendant to strike an entire cause of action just because part of it touches on protected activity

● The case shows how retaliation can take subtle forms, such as a sudden investigation or delayed equipment transfers, following an employee's protected complaints

● It's an important precedent for California employees at public institutions who fear retaliation will follow after reporting harassment or discrimination

A Brief Overview of the Case

● December 9, 2024: Hyewon and Joseph Pechkis file their complaint against CSU in Butte County Superior Court, asserting six causes of action

● March 2025: CSU files an anti-SLAPP motion seeking to strike the FEHA retaliation and whistleblower retaliation causes of action

● The Butte County Superior Court denies CSU's motion

● March 24, 2026: The Third Appellate District affirms the denial, finding CSU failed to carry its burden under the anti-SLAPP statute

FAQs: Pechkis v. Trustees of CSU

Q: What is an anti-SLAPP motion?

A: An anti-SLAPP motion is a special motion under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 designed to strike lawsuits that target a defendant's free speech or petition rights. It's meant to prevent lawsuits filed to silence protected activity.

Q: Can an employer use an anti-SLAPP motion to get rid of a retaliation claim?

A: Not automatically. As this case shows, courts require the employer to show each specific claim arises from protected activity, not just that some communications involved in the case might be protected.

Q: What does it mean for a claim to "arise from" protected activity?

A: It generally means the claim is based on the protected conduct itself, not just that protected conduct is mentioned or connected to the broader circumstances of the case.

Q: Are public university employees protected by the same discrimination and retaliation laws as private sector workers?

A: Yes. Employees at public institutions like the CSU system are generally protected under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the same as private sector employees.

Q: Can being subjected to an investigation after making a complaint be considered retaliation?

A: It can, particularly if the timing and circumstances suggest the investigation was launched in response to the employee's protected complaint rather than for a legitimate reason.

Q: What should I do if I believe I've faced retaliation after reporting workplace harassment or discrimination?

A: Document the timeline between your complaint and any adverse actions that followed, and consult with an employment attorney about your legal options.

Facing Retaliation After Reporting Harassment or Discrimination?

Pechkis v. Trustees of CSU shows that California courts won't let employers use technical motions to sidestep legitimate retaliation claims. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in law firm offices located in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago.

Blake Lively Lawsuit Raises Important Questions About Employee Classification and Workplace Protections

Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios et al. has become one of the most closely watched employment-related lawsuits in recent years, raising questions about workplace harassment, retaliation, and employee classification. The case offers a unique look at how courts may apply labor and employment laws when a worker's role falls outside a traditional employer-employee relationship.

Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios et al.

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

Case No.: 1:24-cv-10049-LJL

The Parties Involved in the Case: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios et al.

The plaintiff in this case is Blake Lively, an actress and producer associated with the film It Ends With Us. The defendants include Wayfarer Studios LLC, various affiliated production entities, Justin Baldoni (who served as a director, actor, and producer on the project), and additional individuals and business entities connected to the production and management of the film. The lawsuit arises from alleged conduct during the production of It Ends With Us and raises questions about workplace protections in nontraditional employment settings.

What Allegations Did Lively Make in the Lawsuit?

According to the filed complaint and subsequent claims, Lively alleges:

• Sexual harassment

• Sex-based discrimination

• Retaliation after raising a workplace concern

• Creation of a hostile work environment

• Conduct allegedly violating anti-discrimination labor law protections

Worker Classification Questions: Was Lively an Employee Protected by Labor Laws?

This case has attracted substantial attention because it raises a worker-classification question in an unusual context: Did Lively qualify as an employee protected by Title VII, or was her role more akin to an independent contractor or business partner? Any decision by the court would hinge on the answer to this essential classification question. Key facts pertaining to the issue include:

• Lively was not a traditional hourly or salaried employee.

• She served as a lead actor and had significant creative involvement in the production.

• The defendants reportedly argued that she was not an employee for purposes of federal anti-discrimination laws.

• The dispute highlights how workplace-protection laws can apply in entertainment-industry settings where individuals often wear multiple hats (actor, producer, executive, creative consultant, etc.).

• The case generated significant discussion regarding whether high-profile talent can invoke workplace protections typically associated with traditional employment relationships.

• A General Timeline of Events: Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios et al.

• Lively filed suit in federal court.

• Defendants challenged various aspects of the claims.

• The litigation was ongoing.

• The court had not yet issued a final determination on the merits of the harassment and retaliation allegations. As of the time of this reporting, major considerations appeared focused on whether Title VII protections could apply despite the atypical nature of the working relationship.

What is the Main Issue the Court Must Consider in the Case?

The most significant question in the Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios et al. case currently appears to be: Can an individual working in a nontraditional entertainment-industry role qualify as an “employee” entitled to protections under Title VII and related anti-discrimination laws? However, this is not the only legal question that the court will face. They will also need to consider:

1. How much control did the defendants exercise over Lively’s work?

2. Was she functioning as an employee, an independent contractor, a producer, or some combination of those roles?

3. Are anti-harassment protections available when the relationship falls outside a conventional employer-employee model?

What Could this Case Mean for California Workers and California Employers?

While this case arises in New York, the lessons for workers and employers are highly relevant for California. Depending on the outcome of the case, California workers in creative, entertainment, consulting, executive, or gig-style roles may still have workplace protections even if not classified as traditional employees. California employers should consider the case's implications as a warning that misclassification risks extend beyond wage-and-hour liability and can affect exposure to harassment, discrimination, and retaliation claims, as well as FEHA liability.

Wide Implications for “Nonemployees” in the Work Force:

In Blake Lively v. Wayfarer Studios et al., employees and employers alike are reminded that courts frequently examine the substance of the relationship rather than the label assigned by either party. Courts may need to determine whether an individual occupying a nontraditional role is nevertheless entitled to workplace protections against harassment, discrimination, and retaliation. As workplaces increasingly rely on contractors, consultants, and hybrid work arrangements, the distinction between employee and nonemployee status remains a critical legal issue for both workers and employers.

Frequently Asked Questions for California Employees:

Q: Why is employee classification important in employment law?

A: Employee classification determines which workplace protections and legal rights may apply to a worker. Depending on the circumstances, individuals classified as employees may be entitled to protections against discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage-and-hour violations, and other rights that may not apply in the same way to independent contractors.

Q: Can independent contractors be protected by anti-discrimination laws?

A: Sometimes. Whether an individual is protected under laws such as Title VII or California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) depends on the specific facts of the working relationship and the applicable law. Courts often examine the substance of the relationship rather than relying solely on the title or contract used by the parties.

Q: What factors do courts consider when determining whether someone is an employee?

A: Courts may consider numerous factors, including the amount of control exercised over the individual's work, how the worker is paid, who provides equipment or resources, the degree of independence in performing the work, and the overall nature of the working relationship. No single factor is necessarily determinative.

Q: Can workers in creative or entertainment industries bring workplace harassment claims?

A: Potentially, yes. Individuals working in entertainment, consulting, executive, or other nontraditional roles may still have legal protections against harassment, discrimination, or retaliation depending on the facts of the relationship and the laws that apply.

Q: Does California law provide additional protections for workers?

A: In many situations, yes. California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) often provides broader workplace protections than federal law, and California courts frequently look beyond a worker's title to evaluate the true nature of the working relationship.

Q: When should someone consult an employment attorney about worker classification or workplace discrimination?

A: Workers should consider speaking with an employment attorney if they believe they have been misclassified, experienced workplace harassment or discrimination, faced retaliation after reporting misconduct, or have questions about whether they are protected under California or federal employment laws. An attorney can evaluate the specific facts and explain the legal rights that may apply.

The Blake Lively litigation highlights a growing issue in today's workforce: whether employers can avoid legal responsibility by labeling workers as independent contractors, consultants, or other nontraditional classifications. If you have experienced workplace harassment, discrimination, retaliation, or worker-classification issues, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can evaluate your potential claims and help protect your rights under California's employee-friendly labor and employment laws.

Can a Single Racial Slur Be Enough to Support a FEHA Harassment Claim?

A California Supreme Court decision clarified that even a single racial epithet may support a viable FEHA harassment claim when the circumstances make the incident severe enough, and that retaliation can include conduct that effectively blocks an employee’s ability to report and address harassment.

Case: Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office (Cal. 2024)

Court: San Francisco Superior Court / Supreme Court of California

Case/Docket No.: CGC 15-549675 / S265223

A Background on the Case: Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office

Twanda Bailey worked for the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and was promoted in 2011 to an investigative assistant position. She worked alongside another investigative assistant, Saras Larkin, in the records room. On January 22, 2015, Larkin told Bailey she had seen a mouse run under Bailey’s desk. When Bailey jumped up in surprise, Larkin walked over and quietly said, “You [N-words] is so scary.” Bailey immediately left the office, told coworkers what had happened, and was crying and upset.

Bailey did not immediately report the incident to human resources because she feared harassment and retaliation. A supervisor later reported the incident, and management met separately with Bailey and Larkin. Bailey repeated that the racial slur had been used. Larkin did not admit to making the remark. Although management told Bailey the issue would be addressed, the human resources representative did not file a formal complaint as required by city policy. When Bailey later asked for a copy of the complaint and requested that one be filed, she was told no complaint existed and was refused. Bailey then alleged that the HR manager’s conduct toward her changed, including ignoring her, laughing at her, rudely staring at her, and making remarks Bailey perceived as retaliatory.

The Legal Problem That Caused the Case to Proceed to the California Supreme Court

The legal issue was whether Bailey’s evidence was enough to survive summary judgment on her FEHA harassment and retaliation claims. The lower courts treated the coworker’s one-time use of the racial slur as insufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile work environment and concluded Bailey had not shown an adverse employment action for retaliation.

The California Supreme Court took review because the case raised significant questions about how FEHA should treat severe single incidents of racial harassment and whether efforts to obstruct or undermine an employee’s complaint process can amount to retaliation. Those issues had broad implications for discrimination and hostile work environment litigation across California workplaces.

An Isolated Act of Harassment Maybe Actionable:

The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals. It held that an isolated act of harassment may be actionable if it is sufficiently severe in light of the totality of the circumstances. The Court specifically stated that a coworker’s use of an unambiguous racial epithet, such as the N-word, may be found severe enough to alter the conditions of employment and create a hostile work environment.

The Court also held that retaliation under FEHA is not limited to obvious disciplinary acts, such as firing or demotion. A course of conduct that effectively withdraws an employee’s means of reporting and addressing racial harassment may itself constitute an adverse employment action. Applying those standards, the Court found triable issues of fact on both Bailey’s harassment and retaliation claims and sent the case back for further proceedings.

That holding set an important precedent. Bailey makes clear that courts must look at the seriousness and context of racial harassment, not just count how many times it happened. It also confirms that efforts to block an employee’s use of internal complaint systems can be actionable retaliation under FEHA.

Why This Case is Significant for California Employment Law:

This case matters because it strengthens FEHA protections in two important ways. First, it rejects the simplistic argument that one slur can never be enough. The Court recognized that some language is so uniquely degrading and harmful that a single use may support a harassment claim depending on the surrounding circumstances.

Second, the decision broadens the practical understanding of retaliation. Employees often depend on internal reporting systems to seek help after harassment. If managers or HR personnel obstruct those systems, refuse to process complaints, or create an atmosphere of intimidation around reporting, that conduct may itself be actionable.

For present-day litigants, Bailey is a strong California precedent for FEHA harassment and retaliation claims involving racial slurs, hostile work environment allegations, and internal complaint obstruction. It is especially relevant where an employer argues that the conduct was too isolated or the response too informal to matter.

FAQ About the Bailey FEHA Harassment and Retaliation Case

Q: What was the main issue in Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney’s Office?

A: The case asked whether a coworker’s one-time use of the N-word could be severe enough to support a FEHA harassment claim and whether conduct that effectively blocked Bailey’s ability to report and address the incident could qualify as retaliation.

Q: What happened that led Bailey to sue?

A: Bailey alleged that a coworker called her the N-word in the workplace, and that after she tried to address the incident, human resources obstructed the complaint process and engaged in intimidating conduct toward her.

Q: Did the lower courts think one racial slur was enough?

A: No. The trial court and Court of Appeal concluded Bailey had not shown severe or pervasive harassment and had not established an adverse employment action for retaliation.

Q: What did the California Supreme Court hold about a single racial epithet?

A: The Court held that an isolated act of harassment may be actionable if it is sufficiently severe, and that a coworker’s use of an unambiguous racial epithet like the N-word may be enough under the totality of the circumstances.

Q: What did the Court say about retaliation?

A: The Court held that a course of conduct that effectively withdraws an employee’s means of reporting and addressing racial harassment may constitute an adverse employment action under FEHA.

Q: Why is Bailey important for FEHA claims today?

A: It is important because it strengthens harassment claims based on severe isolated incidents and recognizes that retaliation can include blocking or undermining internal complaint mechanisms.

Q: Did the Supreme Court rule that Bailey automatically wins?

A: No. The Court held that triable issues of fact existed and reversed summary judgment, meaning the claims were strong enough to proceed rather than be dismissed at that stage.

Q: What kinds of cases might Bailey help with now?

A: It is especially helpful in FEHA cases involving racial slurs, hostile work environment allegations, and retaliation tied to reporting discrimination or harassment internally. That application follows directly from the Court’s reasoning and holding.

California employees do not lose FEHA protection simply because harassment happened in a single shocking moment instead of over months of repeated conduct. Nor should workers be left without recourse when efforts to report on the job discrimination are blocked or undermined from within. If you experienced racial harassment, retaliation, or obstruction after reporting unlawful workplace conduct, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP can assess whether your rights may have been violated under California employment law.

Can an Employee Be Protected for Reporting Misconduct the Employer Already Knew About?

A California Supreme Court decision clarified that whistleblower protections can still apply when an employee reports unlawful conduct directly to an employer who was already aware of the wrongdoing.

Case: People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc. (Cal. 2023)

Court: Orange CountySuperior Court / Supreme Court of California

Case/Docket No.: 30-2017-00950004 / S269456

Can an Employee Be Protected for Reporting Misconduct the Employer Already Knew About?

A California Supreme Court decision clarified that whistleblower protections can still apply when an employee reports unlawful conduct directly to an employer who was already aware of the wrongdoing.

This case arose from a wage complaint by an employee working at an Orange County nightclub. The California Supreme Court explained that A.C.R. worked as a bartender for Kolla’s, Inc. from 2010 to 2014. On April 5, 2014, she complained to the owner that she had not been paid wages owed for her previous three shifts. According to the opinion, the employer responded by threatening to report her to immigration authorities, firing her, and telling her never to return to the club.

After that, A.C.R. filed a complaint with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, which investigated. The Labor Commissioner later sued Kolla’s and its owner for Labor Code violations, including retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5(b). The Supreme Court noted that the employer did not participate in the litigation, so the courts accepted the Labor Commissioner’s factual presentation.

The Legal Problem That Caused the Case to Proceed to the California Supreme Court

The legal issue was not whether the conduct was troubling. It was whether A.C.R.’s complaint to the employer counted as a protected “disclosure” under section 1102.5(b). The trial court ruled that the Labor Commissioner had not stated a valid retaliation claim under that section because A.C.R. complained to her employer rather than to a government agency. The Court of Appeal recognized that the current version of section 1102.5(b) protects internal disclosures to an employer, but it still affirmed on the theory that no protected disclosure occurred because the employer already knew about the wage violation.

That interpretation turned the case into an important statewide question about whistleblower law. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether an employee’s report loses protection if it is made to the wrongdoer or to someone already aware of the unlawful conduct.

The Supreme Court’s Decision in Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc.:

The California Supreme Court reversed. It held that a report of unlawful activity to an employer or agency that already knows about the violation can still qualify as a protected disclosure under Labor Code section 1102.5(b). The Court said the statute’s language, history, and purpose did not support the narrow interpretation used by the lower courts.

The Court explained that section 1102.5 was enacted to protect whistleblowers from retaliation and has since been broadened by the Legislature, including amendments that specifically expanded protection for disclosures to persons with authority over the employee or others who can investigate or correct violations. The Court also emphasized its prior recognition that section 1102.5(b) reflects a broad public policy favoring the reporting of unlawful workplace conduct without fear of retaliation.

In reaching its holding, the Court rejected the narrower view that “disclose” means only revealing something unknown to the recipient. It noted that this reasoning had been influenced by outdated federal whistleblower precedent and did not fit California’s statutory framework or legislative purpose. The Court expressly disapproved contrary case law to the extent it conflicted with this interpretation.

Why Does this Case Matter for California Labor Law Claims?

This case matters because it strengthens protections against retaliation for employees who speak up internally. A worker does not lose whistleblower protection just because the complaint is directed to the person or business already responsible for the misconduct. That is especially important in real workplaces, where the first complaint about unpaid wages, discrimination, safety problems, or other legal violations is often made to a supervisor, owner, or manager rather than to a government agency.

It also matters because the ruling prevents employers from using a technical reading of “disclosure” to escape liability for retaliation. After Kolla’s, an employer generally cannot argue that an internal complaint is unprotected merely because the employer already knew of the conduct being reported. That makes the case a strong precedent in whistleblower and retaliation litigation under Labor Code section 1102.5.

For present-day parties, Kolla’s is especially useful when an employee complained directly to management about wage theft, labor violations, or other unlawful conduct and then suffered discipline, termination, or threats afterward. It reinforces the reach of California’s whistleblower statute in exactly those settings.

FAQ About the Kolla’s Whistleblower Retaliation Case

Q: What was the main issue in People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc.?

A: The main issue was whether an employee makes a protected disclosure under Labor Code section 1102.5(b) when reporting unlawful conduct to an employer who already knows about the misconduct.

Q: What did the employee complain about?

A: She complained that she had not been paid wages owed for three prior shifts of work.

Q: What retaliation did the Labor Commissioner allege occurred after the complaint?

A: The complaint alleged that the employer fired the employee, threatened to report her to immigration authorities, and told her never to return to the nightclub.

Q: What did the lower courts decide before the case reached the California Supreme Court?

A: The lower courts concluded that the section 1102.5(b) claim failed because the employee’s report was made to the employer and did not reveal something new to a recipient unaware of the misconduct.

Q: What did the California Supreme Court hold?

A: The Court held that a report of unlawful activity is still a protected disclosure under section 1102.5(b) even if the employer or agency already knew about the violation.

Q: Why is this case important for whistleblower law in California?

A: It broadens and clarifies protection for employees who complain internally, making it harder for employers to argue that internal reports are unprotected simply because management was already aware of the wrongdoing.

Q: Did the Court rely only on dictionary definitions of “disclose”?

A: No. The Court looked at the statutory text, legislative history, and the broader purpose of section 1102.5 in protecting employees from retaliation for reporting unlawful conduct.

Q: Why is Kolla’s still relevant today?

A: It remains a leading California retaliation case because it confirms that internal complaints can qualify as protected whistleblowing even when the employer already knows about the conduct being reported.

Employees should not have to choose between speaking up about unlawful conduct and keeping their jobs. California labor law protects workers who report suspected legal violations, including complaints made internally to those with authority. If you were fired, threatened, or otherwise retaliated against after reporting unpaid wages or other workplace misconduct, Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can assess whether your rights may have been violated under California whistleblower and retaliation law.