The California Supreme Court has agreed to address whether the whistleblower statute, Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b), applies to and protects from retaliation, an employee who discloses violations of law when that information is already known to the governing agency or person of authority at the employer. This question stems from the case
This year, the California Legislature passed and the Governor approved the Contraceptive Equity Act of 2022 (Senate Bill 523 or SB 523), a piece of legislation intended to increase the ability of Californians to exercise full control over their reproductive decisions and to expand coverage and decrease access barriers to reproductive health services.
Among other
Social media sites have become the new “public square” where individuals share opinions and information about all types of political and societal events. Public sector employees, as much as anyone else, use social media to post viewpoints and to participate in public debate. Problems arise, however, when a public employee posts harsh, derogatory, defamatory, or
On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court unanimously decided that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis that is widely used to determine whether an employment discrimination or retaliation case should be dismissed before trial does not apply to whistleblower retaliation claims brought under California Labor Code section 1102.5. As a result, employers will face a
This post was authored by Melanie L. Chaney.
Under Title VII and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), the employer has an affirmative obligation to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent harassment, discrimination, or retaliation. In order to comply with this obligation, employers must investigate all complaints of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation.
The allegations of sexual harassment and assault levied against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein have been front page news for the last week. The board of directors of his company swiftly voted to terminate his employment, but only time will tell what impact Mr. Weinstein’s transgressions (and alleged criminal activity) will have on his former company.
On April 26, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a public agency can incur liability for a First Amendment violation if it demotes or disciplines one of its employee based on the agency’s mistaken belief that the employee has exercised a right of free expression. The Court’s decision in Heffernan v. City of Paterson
On Thursday, June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Lane v. Franks held that the First Amendment protects a public employee who provides truthful sworn testimony, compelled by subpoena, outside the scope of his or her ordinary job responsibilities. In so holding, the Court overturned precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
This blog post was authored by Steven Tang
As we enter the last quarter of this fiscal year, many employers begin to look ahead to new budgets, new agreements with employee organizations, and new opportunities for agency success. While looking ahead to consider and weigh priorities and objectives, employers may also want to look back
When Labor Code section 1102.5, generally referred to as the “whistleblower” statute, was enacted in 1984, the Legislature intended to encourage employees to report violations of state and federal laws by their employers without fear of retaliation. The statute endured for nearly 20 years before it was first amended in 2003. It has now been