From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

California Supreme Court(Minute Order)
Jan 27, 2022
No. S266001 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022)

Opinion

S266001

01-27-2022

LAWSON (WALLEN) v. PPG ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES, INC.


Opinion filed

We answer the Ninth Circuit's question as follows: Section 1102.6 provides the governing framework for the presentation and evaluation of whistleblower retaliation claims brought under section 1102.5. First, it places the burden on the plaintiff to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that retaliation for an employee's protected activities was a contributing factor in a contested employment action. The plaintiff need not satisfy McDonnell Douglas in order to discharge this burden. Once the plaintiff has made the required showing, the burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the action in question for legitimate, independent reasons even had the plaintiff not engaged in protected activity.

Majority Opinion by Kruger, J.

-- joined Cantil-Sakauye C. J., Corrigan, Liu, Groban, Jenkins, and Miller*, JJ.

* Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Two, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.


Summaries of

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

California Supreme Court(Minute Order)
Jan 27, 2022
No. S266001 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022)
Case details for

Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:LAWSON (WALLEN) v. PPG ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES, INC.

Court:California Supreme Court(Minute Order)

Date published: Jan 27, 2022

Citations

No. S266001 (Cal. Jan. 27, 2022)