#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
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
The California Supreme Court has been busy in 2021 deciding cases that affect employers from how to pay meal and rest period penalties to when the statute of limitations for a failure to promote runs. While the state’s...more
On March 21, 2019, in Lewis v. Union City, No. 15-11362, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1) clarified the proper standard for the comparator analysis in intentional discrimination cases under the McDonnell...more
A Second Circuit panel recently revived a former employee’s racial discrimination suit against New York City, reversing in part the Southern District of New York’s dismissal of her case. In Littlejohn v. City of New York,...more
In May 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over federal courts in Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina) issued an opinion with negative consequences for employers...more
In 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States held that plaintiffs claiming retaliation under Title VII must prove that “but for” the retaliation they would not have been discharged. University of Texas Southwestern Medical...more
In Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, the Fourth Circuit recently made clear that the McDonnell-Douglas test is alive and well, rejecting a District Court’s decision which had attempted to back away from the...more
In This Issue: - Notes from the Chair and Executive Editor - The Fourth Circuit Asks What For, Answers with But For: The Determination that a Landmark United States Supreme Court Decision Does Not Change Employment...more
In its 2013 Nassar decision, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs who allege workplace retaliation under Title VII and related statutes must demonstrate that the retaliatory animus is a “but for” cause of the...more
Federal law and most state laws protect employees who complain about discrimination and harassment from retaliatory adverse employment actions (such as demotion or termination). Because retaliation claims can succeed even...more