In 2020, Manuel Contreras mistakenly determined his former employer, Green Thumb Produce, Inc. (Green Thumb), was violating the Equal Pay Act (EPA; Lab. Code, § 1197.5) by paying him less than other coworkers performing similar duties. However, Contreras did not believe Green Thumb was paying him less because of his gender, race, or ethnicity. But, “ ‘[t]he [EPA] does not prohibit variations in wages; it prohibits discriminatory variations in wages.’ ” (Allen v. Staples, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 188, 194.) This meant the EPA did not protect Contreras from the wage difference of which he complained. When Contreras, relying on the EPA, described to supervisors his dissatisfaction with being paid less than others who did the same work, Green Thumb terminated his employment.
In turn, Contreras sued Green Thumb, asserting three causes of action for wrongful termination. His second cause of action was based on section 1102.5, subdivision (b) (section 1102.5(b)), which prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who report legal violations.
At trial, the jury found in Contreras’ favor on all three of his causes of action. Green Thumb filed a motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) claiming the verdict on the whistleblower cause of action was unsupported because Contreras misunderstood the EPA, and his misunderstanding of the law could not provide a proper basis for liability under section 1102.5(b). The trial court agreed, granted the motion, and entered an amended judgment.
On appeal, Contreras challenges the JNOV ruling asserting the evidence at trial adequately supported the jury’s verdict on his whistleblower cause of action. We agree, finding substantial evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that Contreras had reasonable cause to believe Green Thumb violated the EPA, notwithstanding his misinterpretation of that law. We therefore reverse the JNOV ruling and direct the trial court to amend the judgment consistent with the jury’s verdict.
There are 0 comments