In 1984, the Legislature enacted California Labor Code section 1102.5 in order to protect whistleblowers from retaliation against their employers. The law was amended in 2003 and again in 2013, to add protections afforded to employees. In 2013, specifically, the Legislature amended section 1102.5(b), so that an employee’s disclosure “to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or non-compliance” was deemed protected activity. On May 22, 2023, the California Supreme Court addressed whether reporting a violation that is already known to an employer or agency constitutes a protected disclosure under Labor Code section 1102.5(b) in People ex. Rel. Lilia Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc., S269456. Continue reading “California Supreme Court Rules that Whistleblower Protections Apply to Employees Who Disclose Illegal Conduct Already Known to an Employer”
Retaliation
New Amendment to Existing Law Strengthens Rights of California Employees Who Enter Into Settlement Agreements with Their Employers
The majority of disputes that arise in the workplace and proceed to litigation find their resolution not at trial, but in a settlement—agreed to by the employer and the employee and hopefully beneficial to both.
Because so many cases end in settlement, the terms of the settlement agreement become crucial for ensuring a just outcome that is fair to both parties. This is especially so because the power dynamic in negotiations between employers and their employees is often skewed in favor of the employer.
Read more...Can They Fire Me for Complaining About Coronavirus? Your Right to a Safe Workplace in California
Hunter Pyle Law has received a number of calls from workers who are being targeted for retaliation after complaining that their workplace was not safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. This post explores some of the California laws that protect such workers. In short, as explained below, workers in California who speak out against unsafe conditions […]
Read more...Court of Appeal Rules in Favor of Gay CHP Veteran Suing for Sexual Orientation Discrimination
An openly gay California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer, Jay Brome, brought suit against his employer after enduring twenty years of harassment and discrimination. The trial court dismissed his claims on the grounds that they were not filed within the statute of limitations. The California Court of Appeal for the First District reversed the trial court’s ruling in a unanimous opinion, holding that equitable tolling could extend Mr. Brome’s statute of limitations. (Brome v. California Highway Patrol, A154612, filed January 28, 2020.) Continue reading “Court of Appeal Rules in Favor of Gay CHP Veteran Suing for Sexual Orientation Discrimination”
Disabled Psychologist’s Claims for Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation against Department of Corrections Fail Despite Providing Doctor’s Notes
As an employee, there may be times when you need an accommodation in the workplace due to a disability. Sometimes, your employer may ask for a doctor’s note in the course of engaging in the interactive process. How specific do the doctor’s notes need to be? A recently published case provides some insight into this question.
Plaintiff John Doe began working at Ironwood State Prison as a psychologist in 2012. In 2013, he requested to work in a quiet place that allowed him to focus and concentrate. Continue reading “Disabled Psychologist’s Claims for Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation against Department of Corrections Fail Despite Providing Doctor’s Notes”
Read more...San Francisco State University Professor Prevails on Retaliation Claim
San Francisco State University (SFSU) hired Rashmi Gupta in 2006 as a tenure track assistant professor in the School of Social Work. Generally, tenure track professors work for a six year term. After that, SFSU decides whether or not to promote a tenure track professor to the position of associate professor and award lifetime tenure.
Dr. Gupta initially faced some hurdles when she began teaching at SFSU. Her student evaluations were lower than average; however, Dr. Gupta was praised for her efforts in research, scholarship and publication. By 2009, Dr. Gupta had overcome her initial challenges and was receiving positive reviews from students and peer evaluators.
In 2009, Dr. Gupta and several other women of color in the School of Social Work lodged a complaint with the provost to express their concerns about the abuse of power, bullying, micromanagement and a hostile work environment at SFSU. At a follow up meeting, the women expressed concern about the Director of the School of Social Work, and more generally, about discrimination against people of color on campus.
Less than two months after Dr. Gupta lodged her complaints, she received a negative performance review. Many of the criticisms in the review were inaccurate. Dr. Gupta then emailed a colleague complaining that SFSU was hostile toward women of color, and named two individuals for creating the hostile work environment, Don Taylor and Rita Takahashi. At a meeting in March 2010, Dr. Taylor told Dr. Gupta that he knew about the emails, and threatened “to get even with [her].” Continue reading “San Francisco State University Professor Prevails on Retaliation Claim”
Read more...California Court of Appeal Addresses Meaning of “Physically Disabled”
The California Court of Appeal recently issued an opinion that looked into whether an employee has a disability for purposes of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Ross v. County of Riverside, D075106 (published June 10, 2019). Plaintiff Christopher Ross worked for the County of Riverside as a deputy district attorney. In 2013, Mr. Ross discovered that he might have a serious neurological condition. Continue reading “California Court of Appeal Addresses Meaning of “Physically Disabled””
LA Unified School District Teacher’s Claims Alleging Harassment and Retaliation Fail
Aurora Le Mere was a Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) teacher for thirteen years. In that time, she filed a number of complaints and claims arising from her employment, including worker’s compensation claims and administrative complaints regarding LAUSD’s violations of provisions of the Education Code. In 2007, she filed a lawsuit against LAUSD and two individuals for discrimination, harassment and civil rights violations. All her claims and cases through 2007 settled. Then, in 2015, Ms. Le Mere filed another complaint against LAUSD and six individuals claiming that she had been unlawfully harassed and retaliated against since filing the 2007 case and worker’s compensation claims.
The defendants successfully demurred twice to the 2015 complaint. Continue reading “LA Unified School District Teacher’s Claims Alleging Harassment and Retaliation Fail”
Read more...An Employer May be Held Liable for Whistleblower Retaliation When an Employee Reports Concerns about Compliance with Tax Laws
On January 23, 2019, the First Appellate District held that an employer may be liable for whistleblower retaliation when an employee reports concerns about compliance with tax laws. Siri v. Sutter Home Winery, Inc., 1st Appellate Dist. Case No. A141335 (filed Jan. 23, 2019). Plaintiff Says Siri, an accountant for Defendant Sutter Home Winery, Inc. doing business as Trinchero Family Estates (TFE), believed her employer was failing to comply with certain California sales and use tax laws. She consulted with the California State Board of Equalization, who confirmed some of Ms. Siri’s suspicions. Ms. Siri informed her direct supervisor, top management, and the company’s general counsel that TFE was not paying and had not paid use taxes it owed. TFE authorized some payments, but declined to let Ms. Siri pay for others. Continue reading “An Employer May be Held Liable for Whistleblower Retaliation When an Employee Reports Concerns about Compliance with Tax Laws”
Read more...Ninth Circuit Issues Decision Regarding Employee’s Retaliation Claim Against Employer’s Attorney
In Arias v. Raimondo, Plaintiff Jose Anrulfo Arias filed suit against his employer’s attorney, Anthony Raimondo, for retaliation after Raimondo tried to have Arias taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) during a deposition. Arias v. Raimondo, No. 15-16120 (June 22, 2017). Raimondo was representing Angelo Dairy in a lawsuit that Arias had filed in 2006 alleging various wage and hour violations. In an attempt to derail this lawsuit, Raimondo provided ICE with information helpful in determining Arias’ legal status in the United States, and offered to “make the necessary arrangements” to assist ICE in apprehending Arias just ten weeks before trial. When Arias discovered what Raimondo had done, he settled his wage and hour claims out of fear that he might be deported. Then, Arias filed suit against Raimondo for retaliation in violation of the the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) under the theory that Raimondo was acting as Angelo Dairy’s agent when he retaliated against Arias. 
Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Issues Decision Regarding Employee’s Retaliation Claim Against Employer’s Attorney”