The court examined claims brought by Blake Lively arising from the production of It Ends With Us, addressing the application of California law to alleged retaliation.
Continue Reading Hollywood Production Dispute Highlights Reach of FEHA Retaliation Protections
Recently, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have questioned whether the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) framework remains the appropriate standard in certain employment related cases.
On Jan. 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. S266001, 2022 WL 244731 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022), clarifying the legal standard for whistleblower retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 (“Section 1102.5”). Importantly, the Court’s ruling shifts the evidentiary burdens for these claims,
Effective January 1, 2021, plaintiffs who bring whistleblower retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5 will be eligible to recover attorneys’ fees if they prevail. Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who (1) discloses information the employee reasonably believes constitutes unlawful conduct to: a government agency/law enforcement, a person
When an employee termination is on the table, employers know that a supporting investigation is important, as we recently discussed on GT’s The Performance Review podcast, available here. A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal – Garcia-Brower v. Premier Auto. Imps. of CA, LLC, 55 Cal. App. 5th 961 (2020) –
On Monday, June 26, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether the Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) prohibits retaliation against internal whistleblowers or only covers individuals who report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC).
This question has divided practitioners and lower courts alike since Dodd-Frank’s passage in 2010. As reported in our
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an employer may be held liable for retaliating against an employee who did not engage in any protected activity, but who has a close relationship with another employee who did engage in protected activity.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Finds that Employee Who Did Not Engage in Protected Activity Under Title VII is Still Protected by Title VII’s Anti-Retaliation Prohibition
Lots of laws prohibit an employer from firing or taking some other adverse action against an employee based on the employee’s protected conduct, status, or activity. But what happens when you discover an employee’s misconduct only because he or she engaged in protected activity? The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently answered