California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 1102.6 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In a civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Section 1102.5, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by Section 1102.5 was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited action against the employee, the employer shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by Section 1102.5.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 56 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 503 P.3d 659 (Cal. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., 503 P.3d 659 (Cal. 2022). “” (Lab. Code, § 1102.6, added by Stats. 2003, ch.”

Thornbrough v. W. Placer Unified Sch. Dist., 223 Cal. App. 4th 169 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “(e); Lab. Code, § 1102.6) require the higher standard of proof.”

Canupp v. Child.'s Receiving Home of Sacramento, 181 F. Supp. 3d 767 (E.D. Cal. 2016). “See Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.6 (“In a civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Section 1102.”

Wallen Lawson v. Ppg Arch. Finishes, Inc., 982 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 2020). “” Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.6 . Section 1102.6 therefore forces the defendant to introduce evidence sufficient to persuade the trier of fact that the employment action was indeed lawful.”

Turner v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “See Creighton, 2009 WL 3246825 at *4, *5 (“Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of a letter dated October 12, 2007 from [the] attorney for the California La *1204 bor Commissioner, .”

Scheer v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 4× “) Labor Code section 1102.6 is part of the same statutory scheme.”

Randhawa v. Hanford Cmty. Hosp. CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “) Labor Code section 1102.6 provides, “In a civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Section 1102.”

Schnell v. Interstate Assembly Sys., Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 3× “16 Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.6 ; see also Lawson v.”

Willis v. City of Carlsbad (Cal. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Willis argues the facts are undisputed that 13 Labor Code section 1102.6 sets out the employer's burden of proof where a plaintiff shows an action prohibited by section 1102.”

Andersson v. Newhall Sch. Dist. CA2/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” (Lab. Code, § 1102.6.) In other words, three elements must be satisfied to make out a prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation: (1) the plaintiff engaged in protected activity; (2) the plaintiff was subjected to adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link between the…”

Thomas Ward v. Commscope, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “6 states that an employer can prove a defense to a whistleblower retaliation claim by presenting “clear and convincing evidence that the alleged [adverse employment] action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in…”

Wallen Lawson v. Ppg Architectural Finishes, Inc. (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “Whistleblower Retaliation Claim Lawson claims that PPG terminated him in violation of California’s whistleblower protection law, California Labor Code § 1102.5. The California Supreme Court, on certification from a prior appeal in this case, held that California Labor Code §…”

Show all 56 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.