A recent California Supreme Court decision has reinforced whistleblower protections for workers around the state. After nearly two decades of confusion, the Court has specified that the burden of proof in whistleblowing retaliation cases falls on employers, not employees.
This is a significant win for workers who’ve faced retaliation for doing the right thing. Whistleblowers don’t have to prove that their firing was unfair; employers have to actively demonstrate that their actions were unrelated to the whistleblower’s reports. Keep reading to learn more about the Supreme Court’s decisions and what it means for workers like you.
What Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. Establishes
The changes are entirely due to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. The case was first brought to court after an employee of PPG Architectural Finishes sued the company for wrongful termination. The employee, Wallen Lawson, argued that he had been terminated in retaliation for making a whistleblowing report against the company.
Lawson had discovered and reported a scheme at the company to circumvent buyback requirements. One of Lawson’s supervisors would purposefully mistint unpopular paint colors to prevent customers from acting on their right to have the store buy back the paint, which was illegal. After Lawson made his report, he was discharged from the company, allegedly because of his poor performance on the job.
However, Lawson believed that his termination was a clear and direct result of his whistleblowing. Under California law, it is strictly illegal to fire someone for whistleblowing activities, including reporting their employer for violating local regulations and policies. While California is an at-will employment state, in disputed situations like this, it’s clear that one of the parties needs to support their claim regarding the termination.
The question is who that should be. The Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. case forced the California Supreme Court to consider whether the burden of proof falls on the employee to show that the reason for their termination was retaliatory or if it should fall on the employer to prove that it was just.
Initially, Lawson’s case was judged under the McDonnell Douglas test, a three-step framework:
- The plaintiff must demonstrate a preponderance of the evidence that the termination or behavior was discriminatory or retaliatory.
- The defendant can rebut that claim by demonstrating a “legitimate, non-discriminatory” reason for its behavior.
- Finally, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant’s rebuttal is just a pretext for their discriminatory or retaliatory.
The district court determined that Lawson failed to accomplish that third step. However, Lawson’s appeal succeeded, and the California Supreme Court stepped in.
That’s when the entire grounds for the district court’s decision came into question. The Supreme Court found that Lawson’s case should have been judged based on a 2003 addition to the Labor Code, section 1102.6. This section specifies that the McDonnell Douglas test is not the correct way to evaluate these cases. Instead, once the employee establishes a preponderance of the evidence, it’s on the employer to prove that its action was genuinely non-discriminatory.
It’s a small but significant difference. The California Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that the burden of proof is on employers, not employees.
Impact on Whistleblower Protections
In many civil lawsuits, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This is intended to minimize frivolous lawsuits by encouraging people to only sue when they’re confident they can prove their claims. However, this has significant drawbacks for employees fighting against employer discrimination and retaliation.
Employers often have more time and resources to spend on a legal battle. They also have significantly more control over the evidence former employees can access. This can make it extremely hard for employees to prove retaliation since they can’t provide any of the materials that would support their claims. Furthermore, forcing employees to prove that an action was retaliatory or discriminatory puts an additional burden on people who are already suffering.
That’s why the Lawson decision is so important. It holds judges responsible for following the existing law, which puts the burden of proof on employers. This takes the strain off workers who have already lost their jobs or faced other unfair retaliation. Instead, companies have to prove that they weren’t retaliating against whistleblowers. This not only makes it easier for workers to win retaliation cases but also forces companies to act much more carefully with whistleblowers since they are more likely to face the consequences of their actions.
What This Means for Whistleblowers
If you’ve stood up for yourself or the law at your workplace and faced consequences for it, the Lawson decision is excellent news for you. Since it refers to a 2003 law, cases decided using the McDonnell Douglas test since that time may be eligible for retrials.
It’s also invaluable if you’re currently suffering from retaliatory or discriminatory behavior at work. Before this decision, a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit may have required you to take on all the work of proving the reasons behind your boss’s behavior. Now your employer has to convincingly explain its behavior toward you and confirm that retaliation or discrimination played no role in its decisions.
There’s never been a better time to hold employers accountable if you’ve been fired, demoted, or had your hours cut for doing the right thing. The pressure is off of whistleblowers like you and on employers, who have to explain themselves before the court.
Stand Up for Your Rights
If you’ve faced retaliation for blowing the whistle on your employer, the California Supreme Court’s decision in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. has given you more power. You can hold your employer accountable for retaliating against you without being forced to prove their behavior was malicious.
There’s never been a better time to take legal action if you’ve been retaliated against. Get in touch with the experienced employment lawyers at the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., to discuss your case. You can schedule your consultation to learn more about your options and kickstart your fight for fair working conditions today.
