WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION

What is Whistleblower Retaliation (California Labor Code 1102.5)?

Whistleblower Retaliation refers to retaliation tied to specific protected activities as defined by California Labor Code 1102.5.  Attorney Chris Adishian explains California whistleblower protection in the below video.

California made a MAJOR change to the statute governing whistleblower retaliation, effective January 1, 2014.

How was Whistleblower Retaliation defined PRIOR TO January 1, 2014?

Prior to January 1, 2014, statute read:

(a) An employer may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency,
where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.

(b) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.

(c) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation

How is Whistleblower Retaliation defined AFTER January 1, 2014?

STARTING JANUARY 1, 2014, the statute now reads:

(a) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.

(b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.

(c) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.

In short, the BEFORE January 1, 2014, the employee had to complain to “to a government or law enforcement agency” to trigger the whistleblower protections. Now, the employee only has to complain “to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance….” This is a MAJOR change, and the impact to employees and employers will be hashed out in the courts.

What if I’m not sure I have a claim?

Since our founding, Chris Adishian and his team have represented employees in a wide range of employment related claims.

Many employees mistakenly believe that they have no valid claims because California is an “at will” state. Similarly, many employers mistakenly believe that they are litigation proof because California is an “at will” state. The truth is not so clear cut. Talk with us.

Can you represent me if I live outside the State, and am employed by a California-based company?

Yes. If you are located outside of California and the company is located inside California, we can represent you in your claims.

Can you represent me if I live in California, and am employed by an out of state company?

If you are a California resident we can represent you in your claims regardless of where the company is headquartered in the United States, or even outside the United States.

How do we contact Adishian Law?

It is easy.

Please take advantage of our FREE online case submission or call us today to start a conversation.

Contact Us

CASE STUDIES

Represented Plaintiff, a Sales Consultant of Puerto Rican background, who was fired despite consistently receiving "Solid" ratings.

RESULT

Settled low 6 figures

TIME TO RESOLUTION

16 months

HOW WAS CASE RESOLVED?

Settled via 3rd party mediation during litigation

Represented Plaintiff, a high-performing, high-earning female salesperson in claims against former employer alleging that employer unilaterally altered her compensation multiple times, delayed her bonus, reduced her bonus, and then terminated her.

RESULT

Settled in high 6 figures

TIME TO RESOLUTION

18 months

HOW WAS CASE RESOLVED?

Attorney to Attorney negotiation during litigation

DEFENDED regional, publicly traded, bank against a separate former employee alleging retaliation, age discrimination, disability discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, failure to engage in interactive process, failure to provide accommodations, retaliation (whistleblower) and wrongful termination of public policy (retaliation).

RESULT

Settled mid-five figures; very small percentage of demand

TIME TO RESOLUTION

8 months

HOW WAS CASE RESOLVED?

Attorney to attorney negotiation

BLOG

THE LATEST NEWS& UPDATES
  • Mergers and Acquisitions
  • |
  • May 23, 2023

Selling Your Business in California: M&A Review

  • Press Releases
  • |
  • Sep 29, 2022

M&A: Adishian Law Advises on Sale of De Forest Search Partners to Talento, Inc.

  • Press Releases
  • |
  • Sep 08, 2022

Healthcare M&A: Adishian Law Advises on Sale of South Bay Hearing