Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Protection

Useful Rulings on Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Protection

Recent Rulings on Whistleblower and Non-Retaliation Protection

DEREK GEORGE VS CITY OF AVALON

The FAC includes causes of action for: Whistleblower Retaliation; Unlawful Practices Under Gov Code §12940(h); Discrimination under Gov Code §12900, et seq.; Harassment under §12900(j); Failure to prevent harassment under §12900(k); Wrongful termination in violation of public policy; Protected disclosure by state employee; Negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of employee; IIED; Declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MCGUINESS VS. CHEVRON

The reasonably held belief of the whistleblower is what matters. (See, e.g., response to PAF 40-42, 50.) However, under Labor Code §1102.5, subsection (c), if an employee is refusing to participate in actual violations of the law, job duties are considered and whether the employee holds a reasonable belief is not the standard, but rather whether there was, in fact, a legal violation.

  • Hearing

EULICES JIMENEZ VS BIO-NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he protested unsafe conditions, and that Defendant viewed him as a troublemaker and whistleblower who would disclose information about Defendant’s unsafe work conditions. (FAC, ¶¶ 5, 7, 62.) The Court OVERRULES the demurrer to the ninth cause of action. II. Motion to Strike A. Legal Standard Any party may file a timely notice of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435(b).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

ROMAN JACKSON VS AIRGAS USA, LLC, ET AL.

.; Fraud; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; Violation of California Labor Code – rest, meal period, overtime; Violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5 – Whistleblower; Violation of California Labor Code §§ 226, 1198.5 – Wage Statements; and Violation of California Labor Code § 980.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EULICES JIMENEZ VS BIO-NUTRACEUTICALS, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that he protested unsafe conditions, and that Defendant viewed him as a troublemaker and whistleblower who would disclose information about Defendant’s unsafe work conditions. (FAC, ¶¶ 5, 7, 62.) The Court OVERRULES the demurrer to the ninth cause of action. II. Motion to Strike A. Legal Standard Any party may file a timely notice of a motion to strike the whole or any part of a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 435(b).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SULLIVAN MD VS SHARP HEALTHCARE

Entitled "Whistleblower protections," the statute encourages "patients, nurses, members of the medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe patient care and conditions." Section 1278.5(a).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ALEJANDRO PULIDO VS BLUEMERCURY, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

his claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, and negligent hiring, supervision and retention against Defendant, Plaintiff alleges: · “In fabricating a pretextual cause to terminate PLAINTIFF, EMPLOYER, by and through BONACHEA and at the behest of OHP, in order to retaliate against and punish PLAINTIFF for reporting unlawfully unsafe working conditions caused by OHP, in contravention of public policy and whistleblower

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHELSEA HERZOG VS NUSIL TECHNOLOGY LLC ET AL

Here, plaintiff’s fourteenth cause of action for alleged whistleblower violations alleges that NuSil adopted and enforced rules, regulations, and policies that prevented plaintiff from disclosing information to a governmental law enforcement agency or to a person with authority where plaintiff had reasonable cause to believe that NuSil was violating the law. (Comp., ¶279.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

SHELDON WIDUCH VS ANCHETA HOLDINGS LLC,, ET AL.

Fourteenth Cause of Action (Whistleblower Protection, Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 6310) Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s eleventh cause of action for malicious prosecution fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against them. (CCP § 430.10(e).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ALBERTO GUTIERREZ VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION ET AL.

Plaintiff’s tenth cause of action pleads whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 against entity defendants and does. And Plaintiff’s eleventh cause of action pleads intentional infliction of emotional distress against all defendants and Does.

  • Hearing

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

AISPURO VS. BEN’S ASPHALT, INC

The 4th, 5th and 10th COAs (for whistleblower retaliation, wrongful termination, and unfair business practices) also contend he was retaliated against for reporting the “violent assault and battery by his managers MORENO and CHAVEZ”. (Id., ¶¶ 60, 66, and 94.)

  • Hearing

HOUDA ASSALY VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

violation of the FEHA, (4) hostile work environment harassment on the basis of disability in violation of the FEHA, (5) retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (6) failure to provide reasonable accommodation in violation of the FEHA, (7) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of the FEHA, (8) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, or retaliation in violation of the FEHA, (9) retaliation for taking CFRA leave in violation of the FEHA, (10) negligent hiring, supervision and retention, (11) whistleblower

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

EDDIE WASHINGTON VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY, ET AL.

The GCA required Plaintiff to file a government claim within six months of the accrual of his whistleblower claim. (Gov. Code § 911.2(a).) The FAC indicates that Plaintiff’s whistleblower claim accrued, at the latest, on October 26, 2018 at which time Plaintiff was transferred from his unit and removed from his management position. (FAC ¶ 40.) Plaintiff filed his government claim on June 5, 2019, that is, well over six months after his cause of action’s accrual. (FAC Ex. A.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

WAHAB VS. YRC INC.

Defendants move for summary adjudication of the 19th cause of action for Unsafe Workplace and 20th cause of action for Whistleblower Violation (1102.5) on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff did not engage in protected activity; (2) there was no change in the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment; and (3) there was no causal connection between any protected activity and any adverse employment action. (Issues 43-48).

  • Hearing

ROBERT NORLAND VS CRANEVEYOR CORP., ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on June 22, 2020, alleging eight (8) causes of action sounding in: (1) Hostile Work Environment and Sexual Harassment in violation of FEHA and Government Code § 12940(j); (2) Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; (3) Retaliation in Violation of FEHA and Government Code § 12940(h); (4) Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5; (5) Whistleblower Termination in Violation of Public Policy; (6) Intentional Infliction

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

SYLVIA VERONICA SCOTT VS BURBANK UNITIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

In her Complaint Plaintiff alleges that she reported missing children and drug use, which caused Defendants to terminate her employment and label her a ‘whistleblower’, which has interfered with her employment at other educational institutions. Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 14, 2019, alleging two causes of action for (1) Wrongful Termination and (2) Defamation. Defendant filed an Answer on May 23, 2019. PRESENTATION: Defendant filed the Motion to Compel Requests for Production on July 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CYPERT V. CNS NETWORK, INC., ET AL.

Whistleblower Retaliation (Lab. Code, § 1102.5) - Second Cause of Action The second cause of action is for whistleblower retaliation. under Labor Code section 1102.5. The elements of this claim are set forth in CACI no. 2730. Here, Plaintiff alleged that she complained to her department manager who she understood had the authority "to investigate, discover, and/or correct the legal violation," that she was not being paid the same amount as "her peers." (FAC, at ¶ 31.)

  • Hearing

CUA VS THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

In this case, it is undisputed that the Regents maintains a "Whistleblower Protection Policy," which provides an internal complaint and investigatory process for retaliation claims. Separate Statement no. 41. Plaintiff did not exhaust this internal process: she did not file an internal complaint with UCSD. Separate Statement no. 42. Defendant's "Whistleblower Protection Policy" is lodged as "Exhibit 23."

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

In opposition, Plaintiffs contend that worker’s compensation exclusivity does not apply because the Complaint sufficiently alleges that Defendants engaged in “whistleblower retaliation,” which is “abhorred by decent society” and properly considered an exception to worker’s compensation exclusivity. (Opposition, 7-10.) The court agrees that just as FEHA claims are not barred by the workers’ compensation exclusivity, well-pleaded whistleblower retaliation claims are not barred.

  • Hearing

SANDRA CORTEZ VS TRT HOLDINGS INC. A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiff alleges whistleblower retaliation based on her complaints about the behavior of intoxicated patrons of Defendants’ “bottomless mimosa” promotions. Plaintiff also alleges age discrimination and harassment, racial discrimination and harassment, unlawful adoption of English-only policies, and other FEHA and Labor Code violations and related claims. Defendants move to compel arbitration. TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MARSHA LYONS VS OFFICE DEPOT, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff argues that there is good cause justifying further responses because the discovery is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s asserted causes of action, namely her allegations regarding race discrimination, harassment on the basis of race, retaliation for exercising rights under FEHA, whistleblower retaliation, and Defendant’s failure to prevent the same.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHAEL FRILOT VS CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

BACKGROUND On January 15, 2020, plaintiff Michael Frilot filed a complaint against defendants City of Hermosa Beach, Hermosa Beach Police Department, and Suja Lowenthal, City Manager for (1) violation of POBRA, (2) declaratory relief, (3) whistleblower retaliation (Labor Code §1102.5), and (4) writ of mandate (CCP §1085). On September 14, 2020, plaintiff filed a FAC for (1) violation of POBRA, (2) declaratory relief, and (3) Labor Code §1102.5.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JAMES UNDERWOOD VS TIMOTHY STEARNS, ET AL.

On December 14, 2018, Defendant Ace Industrial Supply, Inc. filed a complaint against Toolmasters Industrial Supply, Inc. (18STCV08405), whereby Defendant disclosed the identity of Plaintiff as a whistleblower. Plaintiff alleges that the disclosure of his name as a whistleblower prevents him from finding employment within “the same industry.”

  • Hearing

JOHN DOE VS ROMANTIX INC

While these cases generally all involve FEHA, there is no indication why “me too” evidence may not apply in a Tameny or whistleblower claim. As noted by one treatise, “A plaintiff may offer evidence of alleged unlawful treatment of other employees to show that plaintiff was the victim of similar mistreatment (“me too” evidence).

  • Hearing

AREA J, LLC ET. AL. VS. HOPE OF THE VALLEY

The arguments improperly seek to characterize the claim as a form of contract litigation and/or whistleblower cause of action in order to make the litigation privilege argument stick, when the underlying conduct leading to the report to the California Attorney General is in fact not integral toward determining whether the challenged pleading properly states claims for declaratory relief and indemnity within the Asset Purchase Agreement.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 27     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.