Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Lawson v. PPG: Section 1102.6 Supplies the Whistleblower Burden Framework

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published April 21, 2026

Lawson clarifies how courts evaluate retaliation claims under Labor Code section 1102.5 after the Legislature enacted the burden rules in section 1102.6.

A salesperson alleged retaliation for reporting practices

Wallen Lawson said he was fired after objecting to directives to tint slow-selling paint products so retailers would buy them. The federal court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting test and entered summary judgment for the employer.

The statute displaced the judicial framework

Section 1102.6 expressly requires the employee to prove by a preponderance that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action. The employer then must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the action for legitimate independent reasons.

Pretext is not the employee’s threshold burden

An employee need not first rebut the employer’s stated reason under McDonnell Douglas. Evidence may still bear on causation and the same-decision defense, but the elements and burdens come from the Labor Code.

Disposition

Answering the Ninth Circuit’s certified question, the court directed use of section 1102.6. The federal litigation remained responsible for applying that rule to the evidentiary record.

Key takeaways

• Use the statutory two-stage framework for section 1102.5 claims.
• The employee must show protected activity was a contributing factor.
• The employer’s same-decision burden is clear and convincing evidence.
• Organize evidence around the statutory burdens, not only pretext.