An employee of a produce company, after reading the Labor Commissioner’s website and speaking to a representative in a Labor Commissioner’s office, filed a complaint with the HR department that his pay was lower than less-senior employees performing similar duties. His request for a raise was denied; he was told not to show the Labor Commissioner’s materials to co-workers, and he was fired the next day.
California’s Equal Pay Act prohibits employers from paying an employee of another sex, race or ethnicity less for substantially similar duties: it does not cover pay differences that do not involve these protected characteristics. Mr. Contreras acknowledged that he did not believe that his sex, race or ethnicity were the basis of his lower compensation. His understanding of the scope of California’s Equal Pay Act was incorrect. So, can he still be protected by California’s whistleblower laws?
A California appeals court has said yes, holding that an employee’s belief that a law was violated can still be “reasonable,” even if the employee’s interpretation of the law is incorrect. The standard for a whistleblower claim is a “reasonable” belief that a law was violated. Whether an employee’s belief is “reasonable” is a question for the factfinder – in this case a jury – to decide.
So even if an employee is incorrect about a law, complaints should still be addressed appropriately, and termination should not occur without significant review with your HR Generalist. If a client were insisting on termination, this is a situation where we would strongly advise review by employment law counsel since the risks can be so high.
