Lawson V. Ppg Architectural Finishes Inc Citation

The California Supreme Court just made things a bit more difficult for employers by lowering the bar and making it easier for disgruntled employees and ex-employees to bring state whistleblower claims against businesses. 6 standard creates liability when retaliation is only one of several reasons for the employer's action. The Trial Court Decision. In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., plaintiff Wallen Lawson was employed by Defendant PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (PPG), a paint and coating manufacturer, for approximately two years as a territory manager. In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., Lawson filed two anonymous complaints with PPG's ethics hotline about his supervisor's allegedly fraudulent activity. A whistleblower is a term used to describe a person who chooses to report occurrences of fraud and associated crimes. In other words, under McDonnell Douglas, the employee has to show that the real reason was, in fact, retaliatory. 6 in 2003 should be the benchmark courts use when determining whether retaliation claims brought under Section 1102. Once the employee-plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the employer is required to offer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Under this framework, the employee first must show "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the protected whistleblowing was a "contributing factor" to an adverse employment action. 6 prescribes the burdens of proof on a claim for retaliation against a whistleblower in violation of Lab. The company investigated, but did not terminate the supervisor's employment. Defendant now moves for summary judgment.

1. California Supreme Court Provides Clarity on Which Standard to Use for Retaliation Cases | Stoel Rives - World of Employment - JDSupra
2. California Supreme Court Rejects Application of Established Federal Evidentiary Standard to State Retaliation Claims
3. California Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof in Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
4. California Dances Away From The Whistleblower Three-Step | Seyfarth Shaw LLP
5. Majarian Law Group Provides Key Insights on California Supreme Court Decision
6. California Supreme Court Establishes Employee-Friendly Standard for Whistleblower Retaliation Cases | HUB | K&L Gates

California Supreme Court Provides Clarity On Which Standard To Use For Retaliation Cases | Stoel Rives - World Of Employment - Jdsupra

Majarian Law Group, APC. 6, much like the more lenient and employee-favorable evidentiary standard for evaluating whistleblower retaliation claims brought under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 USC § 1514A (SOX). What Lawson Means for Employers. The California Supreme Court acknowledged the confusion surrounding the applicable evidentiary standard and clarified that Section 1102. The employer's high evidentiary standard thus will make pre-trial resolution of whistleblower retaliation claims extremely difficult. In Wallen Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes Inc., No. During most of the events [*3] at issue here, Plaintiff reported to RSM Clarence Moore. ) Lawson sued PPG in a California federal district court, claiming that PPG fired him in violation of Labor Code section 1102. What does this mean for employers? 2019 U. LEXIS 128155 *. Finding the difference in legal standards dispositive under the facts presented and recognizing uncertainty on which standard applied, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to resolve this question of California law. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the plaintiff claimed the court should have instead applied the framework set out in Labor Code Section 1102.

The court went on to state that it has never adopted the McDonnell Douglas test to govern mixed-motive cases and, in such cases, it has only placed the burden on plaintiffs to show that retaliation was a substantial factor motivating the adverse action. Click here to view full article. Adopted in 2003 (one year after SOX became federal law), Section 1102. 5, instead of a more plaintiff-friendly standard the California Supreme Court adopted in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. earlier this year.

California Supreme Court Rejects Application Of Established Federal Evidentiary Standard To State Retaliation Claims

As employers have grown so accustomed to at this point, California has once again made it more difficult for employers to defend themselves in lawsuits brought by former employees. 6, which was intended to expand employee protection against retaliation. In this article, we summarize the facts and holding of the Lawson decision and discuss the practical effect this decision has on employers in California. The ruling is a win for health care employers in that it will give them the opportunity to present legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for employee disciplinary actions, then again shift the burden to plaintiffs to show evidence that their decisions were pretextual. Contact us online or call us today at (310) 444-5244 to discuss your case. "Under the statute, employees need not satisfy the McDonnell Douglas test to make out a case of unlawful retaliation. " The court's January 27 decision in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. may have significant ramifications on how employers defend against whistleblower claims in California.

Moore continued to supervise Lawson until Lawson was eventually terminated for performance reasons. 5, as part of a district court case brought by Wallen Lawson, a former employee of PPG Industries. CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL.

California Supreme Court Clarifies Burden Of Proof In Whistleblower Retaliation Claims

5, employees likely will threaten to file more such claims in response to employment terminations and other adverse employment actions. The McDonnell Douglas test allowed PPG to escape liability because PPG was able to present legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for firing Mr. Lawson despite Mr. Lawson showing that he had been retaliated against due to his reporting of the mistinting practice. It is important to note that for now, retaliation claims brought under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act are still properly evaluated under the McDonnell-Douglas test. Instead, it confirmed that the more worker friendly test contained in California Labor Code Section 1102.

Ultimately, the California Supreme Court held that moving forward, California courts must use the standard set forth in Labor Code section 1102. The decision will help employees prove they suffered unjust retaliation in whistleblower lawsuits. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the adverse action for a legitimate, independent reason even if the plaintiff-employee had not engaged in protected activity. Image 1: Whistleblower Retaliation - Majarian Law Group. 5 and the California Whistleblower Protection Act, the court upheld the application of the employee-friendly standard from Lawson. Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more. To learn more, please visit About Majarian Law Group. Although the California legislature prescribed a framework for such actions in 2003, many courts continued to employ the well-established McDonnell Douglas test to evaluate whistleblower retaliation claims, causing confusion over the proper standard. Lawson claimed that the paint supplier fired him for complaining about an unethical directive from his manager. Then, the employer bears the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action "for legitimate, independent reasons. " Generally, a whistleblower has two years to file a lawsuit if they suspect retaliation has occurred.

California Dances Away From The Whistleblower Three-Step | Seyfarth Shaw Llp

The California Supreme Court's Decision. See generally Second Amended Compl., Dkt. Some have applied the so-called McDonnell Douglas three-prong test used in deciding whether a plaintiff has sufficiently proven discrimination to prevail in a whistleblower claim. At the summary judgment stage, the district court applied the three-part burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. Lawson claimed that he spoke out against these orders from his supervisor and filed two anonymous complaints with PPG's ethics hotline, in addition to confronting Moore directly.

The state supreme court accepted the referral and received briefing and arguments on this question. 6, McDonnell Douglas does not state that the employer prove the action was based on the legitimate non-retaliatory reason; instead, the employee always bears the ultimate burden of proving that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. Employers should consider recusing supervisors from employment decisions relating to employees who have made complaints against the same supervisor. Lawson was a territory manager for the company from 2015 to 2017.

Majarian Law Group Provides Key Insights On California Supreme Court Decision

Plaintiff's Statement of Disputed Facts ("SDF"), Dkt. Seeking to settle "widespread confusion" among lower courts, the California Supreme Court recently confirmed that California's whistleblower protection statute—Labor Code section 1102. The California Supreme Court noted that the McDonnell Douglas test is not well-suited for so-called mixed motive cases "involving multiple reasons for the challenged adverse action. " PPG asked the court to rule in its favor before trial and the lower court agreed.

It is important that all parties involved understand these laws and consequences. 5—should not be analyzed under the familiar three-part burden shifting analysis used in cases brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and federal anti-discrimination law, Title VII. The Ninth Circuit referred to the Supreme Court of California the question of which evidentiary standard applies to Section 1102. If you have any questions on whistleblower retaliations claims or how this California Supreme Court case may affect your business, please contact your Fisher Phillips attorney, the authors of this Insight, or any attorney in our California offices. Under the McDonnell-Douglas test, an employee establishes a prima facie case of retaliation by alleging sufficient facts to show that: 1) the employee engaged in a protected activity; 2) the employee was subjected to an adverse employment action; and 3) a causal link exists between the adverse employment action and the employee's protected activity. Employers especially need to be ready to argue in court that any actions taken against whistleblowers were not due to the worker's whistleblowing activity. Lawson also told his supervisor that he refused to participate.

California Supreme Court Establishes Employee-Friendly Standard For Whistleblower Retaliation Cases | Hub | K&L Gates

Unlike under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the burden does not shift back to plaintiff-employees. 6 of the California Labor Code states that employees must first provide evidence that retaliation of the claim was a factor in the employer's adverse action. SACV 18-00705 AG (JPRx). 5 retaliation claims, employees are not required to satisfy the three-part burden-shifting test the US Supreme Court established in 1973 in its landmark McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green decision. Moving forward, employers should review their antiretaliation policies with legal counsel to ensure that whistleblower complaints are handled properly. 6 took effect, however, many courts in California continued to apply the McDonnell Douglas test to analyze Section 1102. Employers must also continue to be proactive in anticipating and preparing for litigation by performance managing, disciplining, and terminating employees with careful preparation, appropriate messaging, thorough documentation, and consultation with qualified employment counsel.

California Supreme Court Confirms Worker Friendly Evidentiary Standard for Whistleblower Retaliation Claims. 6 of the California Labor Code, the McDonnell Douglas test requires the employee to provide prima facie evidence of retaliation, and the employer must then provide a legitimate reason for the adverse action in question. In short, section 1102. 5, because he had reported his supervisor's fraudulent mistinting practice. Such documentation can make or break a costly retaliation claim. Anyone with information of fraud or associated crimes occurring in the healthcare industry can be a whistleblower. Finally, if the employer is able to meet its burden, the employee must then demonstrate that the employer's given reason was pretextual. There are a number of laws in place to protect these whistleblowers against retaliation (as well as consequences for employers or organizations who do not comply).

The California Supreme Court answered the Ninth Circuit's question by stating that the McDonnell Douglas standard is not the correct standard by which to analyze section 1102. In evaluating the case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that there was a lack of uniformity when evaluating California Labor Code claims under Section 1102. 6, not McDonnell Douglas. The Ninth Circuit's Decision. Lawson then brought a whistleblower retaliation claim under Labor Code section 1102. On 27 January 2022, the California Supreme Court answered a question certified to it by the Ninth Circuit: whether whistleblower claims under California Labor Code section 1102. In Scheer's case, even though the court found that the employer-friendly standard applied on his Health & Safety Code law claim, he was able to proceed with that claim in part because he had evidence of positive reviews from his supervisors and supervisor performance goals which did not refer to any behavioral issues.