information discloses violation in California

2026Both cases are materially different because neither involved a protected disclosure under the “health or safety” prong of the CWPA. (§ 8547.2, subd. (e)(1)(B).) In Patten, a junior high school principal brought a whistleblower claim under Labor Code section 1102.5, which prohibits retaliation against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency “ ‘where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or violation or noncompliance with a state or federal regulation.’ ” (Patten, supra, 134 Ca

2020Fourth Cause of Action for Retaliation in Violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5 Labor Code, section 1102.5, subdivision (b) prohibits retaliation “for disclosing information” to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate the matter disclosed “if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute . . . .” To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show: “(1) she engaged in a protected activity, (2) her 17 employer subjected her to an adverse employment

2025Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 719 , 722 (Garcia-Brower).) Its provisions “ ‘reflect[] the broad public policy 23 interest in encouraging workplace whistle-blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.’ ” (Lawson, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 709 ; Garcia-Brower, at p. 723.) Section 1102.5, subdivision (b) provides that an employer “shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, . . . to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, . . . i

2024Code, § 1102.5) A. Relevant law Labor Code section 1102.5 states: “(a) An employer, . . . shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information . . . to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of [laws, rules or

2021That section is a whistleblower statute, which “reflects the broad public policy interest in encouraging workplace whistle-blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.” (Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 77 .) It provides: “(b) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or 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 th

2014Terry alleged defendants terminated him "because they suspected and feared that [he] intended to report them to governmental agencies . . . ." Former section 1102.5 made it unlawful for an employer to "retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation." (§ 1102.5, subd. (b).) "This provision reflects the broad public policy interest in encouraging wo

2025Section 1102.5 Section 1102.5 is “California’s general whistleblower statute.” (Carter v. Escondido Union High School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 922, 933 .) As is relevant here, section 1102.5(b), prohibits an employer from retaliating “against an employee for disclosing information . . . to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute.” (§ 1102.5(b).) This provis

2014(Wiener, supra, 32 Cal.4th at p. 1142 [we independently review the trial court’s mling in an appeal from the grant of summary judgment].) 7 The version of the statute that was applicable at the time of Diego’s discharge, former section 1102.5(b), provided: “An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.” (Stats. 2003, ch. 484,

2020(Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102 , 1108- 1109 [retaliatory termination in violation of public policy]; Akers v. County of San Diego (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1453 [section 1102.5].) “Once an employee establishes a prima facie case [of retaliation], the employer is required to offer a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. [Citation.] If the employer produces a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, the presumption of retaliation ‘drops out of the picture,’ and the burden shifts back to the employee to prove intent

2005Code, § 12940, subd. (h).) Similarly, under Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), an employer may not ‘retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government . . . agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute ....’” (Akers, supra, 95 Cal.App.4th at p. 1453 , italics added; see Yanowitz, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. 1036 .) Although prior to Yanowitz there had been little authority in California defining an adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation lawsuit under FEHA, there has

2016(Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 77 ; Hager v. County of Los Angeles (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1548 (Hager); McVeigh v. Recology San Francisco (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 443, 468 .) Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) protects an employee from retaliation by his employer for making a good faith disclosure of a violation of federal or state law to a government agency.

2015(Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, 328 .) Section 1102.5(b) has been broadly construed to protect an employee from retaliation by his or her employer even where the report to law enforcement concerned a violation of law committed by a fellow employee or contractor, and not by the employer. ( Hager, supra, at p. 1552 ; McVeigh v. Recology San Francisco (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 443 , 469–471 (McVeigh).) At the time of the trial below, section 1102.5(b) was worded as follows: ―An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a gove

2021Section 1102.5, subdivision (b) prohibits an employer from retaliating “against an employee for disclosing information . . . to a government or law enforcement agency, [or] to a person with authority over the employee . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of [a] state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.” To establish a violation of section 1102.5 requires: “ ‘(1) the plaintiff est

2020A. Statutory Scheme and Standard of Review Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee “for disclosing information . . . to a government or law enforcement agency . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.” The purpose of the statute is to “‘encourag[e] workplace whistle-blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.’ [Citation.]” (Soukup v. Law Offices o

2023Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) states, in relevant part: “An employer . . . shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information . . . to a government or law 8 enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statut

2023Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) states, in relevant part: “An employer . . . shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information . . . to a government or law 8 enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statut

2022Code, former § 1102.5, subd. (b); Stats. 2003, ch. 484, § 2, p. 3518.) To prove a claim of retaliation under this statute, the plaintiff “must demonstrate that he or she has been subjected to an adverse employment action that materially affects the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” (McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 377, 386 .) “Minor or relatively trivial adverse actions by employers or fellow employees that, from an objective perspective, are reasonably likely 10 to do no more than anger or upset an employee do not materially affect the

2022Code, former § 1102.5, subd. (b); Stats. 2003, ch. 484, § 2, p. 3518.) To prove a claim of retaliation under this statute, the plaintiff “must demonstrate that he or she has been subjected to an adverse employment action that materially affects the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” (McRae v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 377, 386 .) “Minor or relatively trivial adverse actions by employers or fellow employees that, from an objective perspective, are reasonably likely 10 to do no more than anger or upset an employee do not materially affect the

2025(Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (2006) 39 Cal.4th 260, 287 .) In relevant part, the statute prohibits “[a]n employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, [from] retaliat[ing] against an employee for disclosing 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, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncom

2025Jordan Fails to State a Claim for Retaliation Under Labor Code Section 1102.5 Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), provides: “An employer . . . shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information . . . to a government or law enforcement agency, [or] to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local

2022Section 1102.5, subdivision (b), is “ ‘California’s general whistleblower statute’ [citation], which provides: ‘An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information . . . where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.’ ” (McVeigh v. Recology San Francisco (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 443, 468 .) Similarly, “[s]ection 6310, subdivision (b), permits an action for damages if the employee is discharged, threatened with discharge,

2020Section 1102.5, subdivision (b) prohibits retaliation against employees who engage in whistleblowing: “[a]n employer . . . shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing 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, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with local, state, or federal rule or regulat

2020(Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102 , 1108- 1109 [retaliatory termination in violation of public policy]; Akers v. County of San Diego (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1453 [section 1102.5].) “Once an employee establishes a prima facie case [of retaliation], the employer is required to offer a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. [Citation.] If the employer produces a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action, the presumption of retaliation ‘drops out of the picture,’ and the burden shifts back to the employee to prove intent

2020Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks (1993) 509 U.S. 502, 506 ), the United States Supreme Court developed a three-step, burden-shifting mechanism in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 , that also governs whistleblowing claims under section 1102.5 (Akers v. County of San Diego (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1453 (Akers); Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108-1109 ; Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 138 (Mokler); Bareno v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 546, 560 (Bareno)).

2006Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) provides: “An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.” Labor Code section 1102.5 is a whistleblower statute, the purpose of which is to “encourag[e] workplace whistle-blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.” (Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66

2006Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) provides: “An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation.” Labor Code section 1102.5 is a whistleblower statute, the purpose of which is to “encourag[e] workplace whistle-blowers to report unlawful acts without fearing retaliation.” (Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66

2018(See *362 Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 592 , 604, fn. 9, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 , 236 P.3d 346 .) Labor Code section 1106 makes section 1102.5 explicitly applicable to the University of California. ( Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311 , 330, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 320 , 106 P.3d 976 .) Section 12653 of the Government Code provides: "(a) Any employee, contractor, or agent shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make that employee, contractor, or agent whole, if that employee, contractor, or agent is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened

2018(See *362 Lu v. Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 592 , 604, fn. 9, 113 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 , 236 P.3d 346 .) Labor Code section 1106 makes section 1102.5 explicitly applicable to the University of California. ( Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311 , 330, 25 Cal.Rptr.3d 320 , 106 P.3d 976 .) Section 12653 of the Government Code provides: "(a) Any employee, contractor, or agent shall be entitled to all relief necessary to make that employee, contractor, or agent whole, if that employee, contractor, or agent is discharged, demoted, suspended, threatened

2025(See generally People v. Braden (2023) 14 Cal.5th 791 , 804 [noting potential aid of dictionary definitions in statutory interpretation]; see also State of California v. Altus Finance (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1284, 1296 [noting the limitations of dictionary definitions].) In its 1990 edition, published two years before section 1106’s enactment, Black’s Law Dictionary explained that although the term “employee” may include “one who works for an employer,” the term “must be distinguished violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an inv

2021(See Edgerly v. 11 Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) prohibits an employer from retaliating “against an employee for disclosing information . . . to a government or law enforcement agency, . . . if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation . . . .” Subdivision (e) provides, “A report made by an employee of a government agency to his or her employer is a disclosure of information to a government or law enforcement agency pursua

2020Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks (1993) 509 U.S. 502, 506 ), the United States Supreme Court developed a three-step, burden-shifting mechanism in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 , that also governs whistleblowing claims under section 1102.5 (Akers v. County of San Diego (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1453 (Akers); Loggins v. Kaiser Permanente Internat. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1102, 1108-1109 ; Mokler v. County of Orange (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 121, 138 (Mokler); Bareno v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th 546, 560 (Bareno)).

2019In Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, supra , 39 Cal.4th at pages 287 to 288, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 638 , 139 P.3d 30 , the California Supreme Court explained: " ' " 'To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that she engaged in protected activity, that she was thereafter subjected to adverse employment action by her employer , and there was a causal link between the two.' " ' [Citation.] [¶] Thus, it appears that a prerequisite to asserting a violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 is the existence of an employer-employee relationship at the time the allegedly retalia

2019In Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, supra , 39 Cal.4th at pages 287 to 288, 46 Cal.Rptr.3d 638 , 139 P.3d 30 , the California Supreme Court explained: " ' " 'To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show that she engaged in protected activity, that she was thereafter subjected to adverse employment action by her employer , and there was a causal link between the two.' " ' [Citation.] [¶] Thus, it appears that a prerequisite to asserting a violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 is the existence of an employer-employee relationship at the time the allegedly retalia