Nejadian v. County of Los Angeles
Annotate this Case
In order to prevail on a claim under Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (c), the plaintiff must identify both the specific activity and the specific statute, rule, or regulation at issue; the court must then determine the legal question whether the identified activity would result in a violation or noncompliance with the identified statute, rule, or regulation, and, if so, the jury must determine the factual issue whether the plaintiff was retaliated against for refusing to participate in the identified activity. The County appealed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in an action alleging retaliation in violation of section 1102.5, subdivision (c), and retaliation in violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).
The Court of Appeal reversed the district court's jdugment and held that the County was entitled to judgment on the section 1102.4(c) retaliation claim, because the trial court declined to make the initial legal determination and plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence at trial to establish that any acts he was asked to perform would result in a violation of or noncompliance with any identified state, federal, or local statute, rule, or regulation. In regard to the FEHA retaliation claim, the court held that the jury instruction erroneously allowed the jury to find in favor of plaintiff even if no violation of FEHA was committed. Rather, the court found in favor of the County because plaintiff failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that any adverse employment action he suffered was motivated by retaliation for complaints he made regarding discrimination or other activity protected by FEHA.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.