Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Protection

Useful Rulings on Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Protection

Recent Rulings on Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Protection

CESARE VIETINA VS ELVIRA BUFFONI, ET AL.

The SAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of employment contract, (2) retaliation – whistleblower protection, and (3) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. The SAC alleges in pertinent part as follows. Madeo Ristorante (Madeo) is a family-owned and run fine-dining Italian restaurant. Madeo is owned and operated by SPA. SPA currently has two directors and two 50% shareholders — Plaintiff and his aunt Buffoni.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHAWONDA WASHINGTON VS DAVITA, INC. ET AL

The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower protections apply primarily to issues relating to the care, services, See Plaintiff Washington’s AUMF, Issue No. 2, Fact No. 73. and conditions of a facility and are not intended to conflict with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to employee and employer relations.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

SARAH THOMAS VS WILLIAM DUNCAN ET AL

Plaintiff filed this complaint on [insert date from complaint].61 The Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) employment discrimination (gender) — hostile environment; (2) employment discrimination (gender) — disparate treatment; (3) employment discrimination (unlawful sexual harassment); (4) employment discrimination (unlawful harassment); (5) employment discrimination (retaliation); (6) employment discrimination (disability); (7) Violation 0f Labor Code Section 1102 (whistleblower); (8) failure to

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

PATRICK FINN VS. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOLD DISTRICT, ET AL

LAUSD contends Plaintiff’s eighth cause of action for whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 is barred as a matter of law for failure to timely comply with the claim presentation requirements of the Government Claims Act.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    Paul A. Bacigalupo or Virginia Keeny

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LYNETTE SALAZAR VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL

With regards to the whistleblower retaliation claim, Defendants argue that all actions occurring before the complaint Salazar made to human resources in July 2017 “would be time barred and precluded because there could be no causal link to actions that occurred before any alleged protected complaints.” (Motion at p. 20.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JURADO RAPHAEL REESE II VS CRUNCH LOS ANGELES LLC ET AL

Defendants similarly argue that no claim exists under the tenth cause of action for retaliation under Labor Code § 1102.5 because Reese has been deemed to admit that the complaints he made were not based on racial discrimination, the conduct underlying his whistleblower claim. (Motion at pp. 13–14.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JASON ROJAS VS COUNTRYWOOD PARK HOMES

With regards to the whistleblower retaliation claim, Defendants argue that all actions occurring before the complaint Salazar made to human resources in July 2017 “would be time barred and precluded because there could be no causal link to actions that occurred before any alleged protected complaints.” (Motion at p. 20.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

DELL'ANNO VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

In addition, "[f]or reasons of public policy, actions against a public entity for claims of discharge from or termination of employment grounded on a whistleblower claim are not barred by governmental immunity." Whitehall v. County of San Bernardino (2017) 17 Cal. App. 5th 352, 365. Defendant's argument lacks merit.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LYNETTE SALAZAR VS CITY OF GLENDALE ET AL

With regards to the whistleblower retaliation claim, Defendants argue that all actions occurring before the complaint Salazar made to human resources in July 2017 “would be time barred and precluded because there could be no causal link to actions that occurred before any alleged protected complaints.” (Motion at p. 20.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARIELOU MENDOZA VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

The McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis applicable to discrimination and retaliation claims applies to whistleblower retaliation claims under section 1278.5. Taswell v. Regents of University of California (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 343, 365. Initially, Plaintiff must make prima facie showing that an adverse action was caused by his or her health and safety complaint.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

NATURAL HEALTH FOUNTAIN, INC., ET AL VS. KENNETH CHEN, ET AL

Code §830), (3) Whistleblower Retaliation (Lab. Code §1102.5), (4) Wage Claim Retaliation (Lab. Code §98.6), (5) Wrongful Termination, (6) Waiting Time Penalties, (7) Unfair Competition, (8) Failure to Provide Accurate Paystubs (Lab. Code §226), (9) Equitable Indemnity, (10) Implied Indemnity, (11) Intentional Interference with Contract Relations, and (12) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

KRISTINE SALAZAR VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The only facts suggest that Defendant demoted Plaintiff as a whistleblower for various illegal conditions at the training facility firing range, and that Defendant initiated a pretextual investigation to demote her. (See FAC ¶¶ 16-20.) These facts do not supply any suggestion that she was demoted by Defendant due to her protected characteristics. As to disability discrimination, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not pled any disability.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MANDEL V. GRUBB & ELLIS REALTY INVESTORS, LLC

They claim they only learned of these acts when they received, via subpoena in late 2016, a document they refer to as “whistleblower” correspondence. (See 6AC, ¶ 125; see also Pls.’ Supp. Brief at p. 2.) Plaintiffs misunderstand the inquiry. Some Grubb & Ellis employees were named as individual defendants on a control person theory in the 2AC in 2011. Moving Defendants were not. Instead, LaPoint was named in the 3AC (2014) and Maurer in the 4AC (2015).

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2020

MANDEL V. GRUBB & ELLIS REALTY INVESTORS, LLC

They claim they only learned of these acts when they received, via subpoena in late 2016, a document they refer to as “whistleblower” correspondence. (See 6AC, ¶ 125; see also Pls.’ Supp. Brief at p. 2.) Plaintiffs misunderstand the inquiry. Some Grubb & Ellis employees were named as individual defendants on a control person theory in the 2AC in 2011. Moving Defendants were not. Instead, LaPoint was named in the 3AC (2014) and Maurer in the 4AC (2015).

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JASON HUTCHINSON VS GOOGLE, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) discrimination in violation of FEHA, (2) hostile work environment harassment in violation of FEHA, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (5) wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy, (6) whistleblower retaliation in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (7) violation of Labor Code section 98.6, (8) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (9) breach

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ABRAHAM LOPEZ VS AVITUS, INC., ET AL.

“To establish a prima facie case for whistleblower liability, a plaintiff must show that he or she was subjected to adverse employment action after engaging in protected activity and that there was a causal connection between the two. Protected activity is the disclosure of or opposition to a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.” (Ibid., internal citations and quotations omitted.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ASHLEY MADDOCK VS EMPLOYMENT TAX SERVICING CORPORATION ET AL

Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot prove she is a whistleblower. (Motion at pp. 14-15.) Section 1102.5, subdivision (b) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee “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 . . . .”

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge

    Laura A. Seigle or Elizabeth Allen White

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

COLEMAN VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

For Whistleblower Retaliation, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies since her pre-litigation claim does not apprise CDCR of CDCR’s alleged unlawful actions. For Harassment and Failure to Prevent Harassment, there are no allegations that CDCR knew or should have known about the harassment, and since the underlying claim fails, so, too, does the claim for Failure to Prevent Harassment.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

GREGORY ROUTT VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 655; in an employment retaliation case, materiality was satisfied for disclosure of personnel records of officers promoted ahead of plaintiff who claimed he was more qualified, but was passed over by his employer in retaliation for his being a whistleblower.) The court must determine whether good cause exists for disclosure, which, if found, leads to step two, an in camera hearing. City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 9. B.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GREGORY ROUTT VS CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS

Superior Court (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 647, 655; in an employment retaliation case, materiality was satisfied for disclosure of personnel records of officers promoted ahead of plaintiff who claimed he was more qualified, but was passed over by his employer in retaliation for his being a whistleblower.) The court must determine whether good cause exists for disclosure, which, if found, leads to step two, an in camera hearing. City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 1, 9. B.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SHOHREH SAMIMI VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CA ET AL

Plaintiff asserts that this case remains a whistleblower case; the new claims are whistleblower claims. Plaintiff contends that her deposition is still open. Plaintiff argues that additionally, the amended complaint will not greatly alter the nature of the litigation, as the addition of new retaliatory theories does not change the landscape from mountain to seascape. Plaintiff asserts that the specific prejudice claimed by Defendant has been expressly rejected by California Courts of Appeal. (Sands v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

LENA GRANT VS IVONNE CASTANEDA, ET AL.

Analysis Request for judicial notice Defendant requests judicial notice of four exhibits: (1) the University of California Whistleblower protection policy, (2) UCLA procedure 620.1, (3) Plaintiff’s DFEH Complaint and Right to sue letter, and (4) Plaintiff’s complaint. The Court of appeal has noted that “The Regents may create a policy for handling whistleblower claims under their power to organize and govern the University.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Plaintiff Julio Sandoval (Plaintiff) filed suit against SL Towing, Stone Shop Designs, SL Towing Services, and Saul Lopez, alleging: (1) nonpayment of minimum wages; (2) nonpayment of wages; (3) nonpayment of overtime wages; (4) failure to provide meal and rest breaks; (5) discrimination in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to reasonably accommodate; (7) failure to engage in an interactive process; (8) retaliation in violation of Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); (9) failure to prevent discrimination; (10) whistleblower

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

DARCY MAUPIN VS. CONTRA COSTA

In response, Plaintiff offered to dismiss several of her claims: IIED, whistleblower retaliation, defamation, Civil Code 51.7 and Civil Code 52.4. The Court accepted this offer and sustained the demurrer to these claims without leave to amend. The Court also found that Plaintiff’s negligence claim was barred by failing to timely file the claim after receiving a denial of the tort claim. The demurrer to the negligence claim was sustained without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

LILIA GARCIA-BROWER VS FAUSTINO RODRIGUEZ ET AL.

At the same time, section 1102.5, which already prohibited retaliation for protected whistleblower activity, is also encompassed as a right a former employee can assert under the Labor Code as per the plain language of section 244(b). Section 244(b) applies where a former employee exercises their rights “under the provisions of this code”, i.e., the Labor Code. The Legislature did not exclude either section 98.6 or 1102.5 when it drafted section 244(b).

  • Hearing

    May 01, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 23     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.