The Supreme Court today agreed to answer the Ninth Circuit’s question of California law in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., where the plaintiff claims he was wrongfully fired after complaining about a fraudulent business practice by his company.
The federal appeals court wants an opinion on the appropriate burden of proof: “Does the evidentiary standard set forth in section 1102.6 of the California Labor Code replace the McDonnell Douglas [(1973) 411 U.S. 792, 802] test as the relevant evidentiary standard for retaliation claims brought pursuant to section 1102.5 of California’s Labor Code?” (Links and case citation added.)
The Ninth Circuit said that “California statutory law seems to provide one standard, while some California courts have provided (though inconsistently . . .) another and materially different standard.”
[February 17 update: After granting the Ninth Circuit’s request, the Supreme Court alerted California’s Attorney General to the case, notice rule 8.548(f)(4) requires when “the court determines that a decision on the question may require an interpretation of the California Constitution or a decision on the validity or meaning of a California law affecting the public interest.”]
