California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Mathews v. Happy Valley Conference Ctr., Inc., 256 Cal.Rptr.3d 497, 43 Cal.App.5th 236 (Cal. App. 2019):
The relevant difference between the two versions relates to the timing of the employee's report to a government agency. Whereas now an employer violates the statute if it retaliates against an employee whom the employer merely believes has made a report to a government agency, courts interpreting the version in effect in 2012 concluded that liability was triggered for retaliatory actions taken only after the employee actually reported the employer. (See Rope v. Auto-Chlor System of Washington, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 635, 649, 163 Cal.Rptr.3d 392, superseded by statute on another ground [finding Labor Code former section 1102.5, subdivision (b) did not cover " anticipatory or preemptive retaliation" taken before the employee reported the employer].)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.