In Romero v. County of Kern (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1189, the Court of Appeal held that a public employee is not required to exhaust internal civil service remedies before filing a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit if local ordinances lack "clearly defined procedures" for resolving such complaints. Distinguishing Campbell v. Regents of University of California (2005) 35 Cal.4th 311, the court found that while Plaintiff did not appeal his termination to the Civil Service Commission, the County’s rules did not specifically require the Commission to address the whistleblower nature of the dispute. Because the County provided no adequate administrative path for retaliation claims, Plaintiff’s compliance with the Government Claims Act was sufficient to maintain his suit.

This decision limits the Campbell exhaustion defense, preventing public entities from blocking whistleblower litigation with vague civil service procedures that do not explicitly account for protected disclosure grievances.

In Contereras v. Green Thumb Produce Inc. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1251, the Court of Appeal held that an employee’s suspicion of a legal violation remains "objectively reasonable" under Lab. Code § 1102.5 (b) even if it is based on a legally impossible application of an existing statute. Distinguishing the "non-existent law" exception from Ross v. County of Riverside (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 580, the court found that because the plaintiff grounded his complaint in a real legal foundation—the Equal Pay Act—and consulted official Labor Commissioner documentation, his belief was not "objectively unreasonable" despite the lack of a protected characteristic allegation.

This decision clarifies the bar for whistleblower protection in California, ensuring that employees are protected from retaliation as long as their complaints are tethered to existing laws rather than purely imaginary theories, regardless of the ultimate legal merits of their claims.

In Lampkin v. County of Los Angeles (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 920, the Court of Appeal held that an employer's successful "same-decision" defense under Labor Code § 1102.6 provides a complete bar to all relief, including attorney's fees and costs, for a § 1102.5 whistleblower plaintiff. Reversing a substantial fee award, the court ruled that because the same-decision finding means the plaintiff obtained no relief, they did not bring a "successful action" under § 1102.5(j) and were not the prevailing party.

This decision explicitly rejects applying FEHA's "mixed-motive" framework to whistleblower claims, solidifying that the § 1102.6 defense is "all-or-nothing."

In Brown v. City of Inglewood (2025) 18 Cal. 5th 33, the California Supreme Court unanimously held that elected city officials are not "employees" as defined by Lab. Code § 1102.6 and thus cannot sue for whistleblower retaliation under § 1102.5. The Court affirmed the dismissal of a city treasurer's claim, reasoning that the statute's omission of elected officials (while listing other public employees) reflects a clear legislative intent to protect "rank-and-file" employees, not public officers who answer to the electorate.

This decision clarifies that § 1102.5 protections do not extend to elected officials and confirms that the common law test for employment does not override clear legislative intent to exclude them.

In Winston v. County of Los Angeles (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 402, the Court of Appeal held that Labor Code § 1102.5(j)'s attorney fee provision applies retroactively to cases that were pending when the statute was enacted. The court affirmed the long-standing rule that fee-shifting statutes are procedural and apply to active litigation absent clear legislative intent to the contrary.

This decision confirms that plaintiffs in pending whistleblower cases can recover fees under § 1102.5(j), even if their case was filed before the fee provision existed.

In Mooney v. Fife (9th Cir. 2024) 118 F.4th 1081, the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a False Claims Act (FCA) retaliation claim, holding that the McDonnell Douglas framework applies, and explicitly rejecting a heightened notice standard for compliance officers or employees whose job involves reporting misconduct. The court affirmed that the employee satisfied the FCA's notice requirement and engaged in protected activity by reporting potential violations.

This decision simplifies the path for compliance officers to bring retaliation claims by confirming they are subject to the same standard of proof as other employees.

In Parker v. BNSF Railway Company (9th Cir. 2024) 112 F.4th 687, the Ninth Circuit reversed a defense judgment in a Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) retaliation case, holding the district court applied the wrong standard for the employer's affirmative defense.

The court clarified that once a plaintiff shows their protected activity was a "contributing factor" (49 U.S.C. §20109(a)(2)), an employer cannot prevail by arguing the contribution was "very little." Instead, the employer must meet the high burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same adverse action absent the protected activity.

In Ververka v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 162, the Court of Appeal held that an employer’s successful "same decision" defense under Labor Code §1102.6 is a complete bar to all relief for a § 1102.5 whistleblower plaintiff. The court rejected plaintiff's attempt to import FEHA's "substantial factor" framework from Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, which can allow for declaratory relief and fees.

This decision solidifies that the § 1102.6 framework provides an "all-or-nothing" outcome, making the defense more powerful than its FEHA counterpart.

In Daramola v. Oracle Am., Inc. (9th Cir. 2024) 92 F.4th 833, the Ninth Circuit held that federal (SOX, Dodd-Frank) and California (Lab. Code §1102.5) whistleblower laws do not apply extraterritorially to a foreign employee working abroad, ruling that accessing U.S. servers does not constitute sufficient domestic conduct.

This decision strongly reinforces the territorial limits of U.S. employment protections, shielding multinational corporations from suits brought by their foreign-based workforce.