#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
In employment law, we traditionally think of discrimination as applying to minority groups: African Americans, women, homosexuals, or other legally protected groups. In analyzing discrimination claims, one of the first...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on June 5, 2025, resolving a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit split in the matter of Ames v. Ohio Dep't. of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. ____ (2025). The Supreme Court...more
Since 1973, federal courts reviewing claims of employment discrimination have used a framework first established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s McDonnell Douglas decision. Under this framework, plaintiffs must show a prima facie...more
Last week, the Supreme Court accepted review of Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The court will address a circuit split regarding the standard courts apply in discrimination claims brought by majority group...more
Executive Summary - In January, the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision that likely will impact employers’ litigation strategies in discrimination cases. In Tynes v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice, the court...more
The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework used to evaluate employment discrimination claims may not be permanently cast aside, but a recent decision reminds us that it is not the only means through which employees can...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh has spoken, and employers that once relied exclusively on McDonnell Douglas might need to rethink their litigation strategy in employment-discrimination cases. On December 12,...more
On December 5, 2022, the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands upheld a 2019 jury verdict, which found that Caribbean airline LIAT (1974), Ltd., had discharged its former area manager, William Cherubin, because of his age in...more
In Scheer v. Regents of the University of California, the Second District Court of Appeal held that the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework applies to claims asserted pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 1278.5....more
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the use of the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to analyze claims of retaliation under Minnesota law, despite the ask by the plaintiff-appellant and amici to...more
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (S266001, Jan. 27, 2022), addressing the Ninth Circuit’s question of the proper method for presenting and evaluating a claim of...more
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 1102.5 are governed by the burden-shifting test for...more
The California Supreme Court has held that the standard for assessing whistleblower retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 is not the McDonnell Douglas test, but the more plaintiff-friendly standard...more
The Supreme Court of California provided California employers with important clarification on the standard courts will apply when analyzing an employee’s whistleblower retaliation claim arising under Labor Code Section...more
On Jan. 27, 2022, the Supreme Court of California issued Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. S266001, ___ Cal. 5th ____, a decision that decisively changed the burden for employers in defending against claims...more
California employers can expect to see an uptick in whistleblower claims as a result of a recent California Supreme Court ruling that increases the burden on employers to prove that adverse employment actions are based on...more
This week, we’re recapping major items shifting at the state, local, and federal levels, including whistleblower retaliation case law, pay transparency rules, and federal labor policies. California Supreme Court Specifies...more
The California Supreme Court set a new, more employee-friendly, evidentiary standard for whistleblower retaliation claims. In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., the Court held Labor Code section 1102.6, not the...more
On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, No. S266001, __ Cal. 5th ___, 2022 Cal. Lexis 312 (Jan. 27, 2022) regarding the proof paradigm in California...more
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. The...more
The California Supreme Court, in a critical decision, has answered a key question regarding whistleblower retaliation claims. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified an important question to the Court...more
Our Labor & Employment Group reviews a California Supreme Court decision that makes it more difficult for employers to dispose of whistleblower retaliation claims. The case centers on the proper method for presenting and...more
In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., __ P.3d __, 2022 WL 244731 (Cal., Jan. 27, 2022), the California Supreme Court clarified that whistleblower retaliation claims brought under Labor Code section 1102.5 should not...more
Despite surviving summary judgment, securing a favorable verdict at the second trial, and being awarded counsel fees, Plaintiff’s gender discrimination case was abruptly dismissed by the Appellate Division. On January 3,...more