ARTICLE
5 June 2023

California High Court Defines Protected "Disclosure" Under Whistleblower Law

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
In an employee-friendly opinion published Monday, May 22, 2023, the California Supreme Court held that an employee may be protected by the state's whistleblower law, even when reporting unlawful activities...
United States California Employment and HR

In an employee-friendly opinion published Monday, May 22, 2023, the California Supreme Court held that an employee may be protected by the state's whistleblower law, even when reporting unlawful activities that the employee already knows.

The whistleblower statute (found at Labor Code section 1102.5) — a subject of other recent Supreme Court reflection — protects employees from retaliation against employers "for disclosing information." In the recent case, the Court was tasked with deciding whether the operative activity — "disclosing" — warranted a broad or narrow reading. The Court opted for the former.

In the case, titled People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla's, Inc., a bartender reported her unpaid wages to the owner of the nightclub where she worked. The owner, already aware of the unpaid wages, terminated the bartender's employment in response to her complaint. The Labor Commissioner sued on the bartender's behalf, claiming violation of the whistleblower law. The trial court found for the owner and the court of appeal affirmed, reasoning that the term "disclose" requires "the revelation of something new." Applying this reasoning, because the nightclub owner already knew about the unpaid wages, the bartender wasn't revealing anything new, and thus didn't make a disclosure that would provide whistleblower protection.

The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation, finding legislative support for concluding that "disclose" means "bringing into view in a particular context a type of information to which the discloser tends to have special access." In reaching this conclusion, the Court shifted focus from what the employer knows (or does not know) to what the employee brings to the employer's attention, whether or not there was prior knowledge of the alleged wrongdoing.

The Court went on to raise policy concerns that a narrow reading would prevent multiple disclosures, leaving employers without corroborating information that could help in investigations and leaving subsequent reporting employees outside the statute's protection.

This opinion brings a significant expansion of whistleblower protection in the Golden State. California employers seeking to comply with these fresh boundaries or facing whistleblower actions should contact counsel for guidance.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More