IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE ex rel. LILIA GARCIA-BROWER, as Labor Commissioner, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. KOLLA’S, INC., Defendant and Respondent. S269456 Fourth Appellate District, Division Three G057831 Orange County Superior Court 30-2017-00950004 May 22, 2023 Justice Liu authored the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Guerrero and Justices Corrigan, Kruger, Groban, Jenkins, and Evans concurred. PEOPLE ex rel. GARCIA-BROWER v. KOLLA’S, INC. S269456 Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. The Labor Code prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for “disclosing information” concerning suspected violations of the law either internally or to government or law enforcement agencies. (Lab. Code, § 1102.5, subd. (b) (section 1102.5(b)); all undesignated statutory references are to the Labor Code.) Violators are subject to various sanctions, including civil penalties remitted to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) of the Department of Industrial Relations. (Id., subd. (f).) In this case, employee A.C.R. complained to the owner of the nightclub where she worked about unpaid wages she was owed. In response, her employer fired her, threatened to report her to immigration authorities, and told her never to return to the nightclub. (We follow the practice of the trial court and the Court of Appeal in using the complainant’s initials in light of the immigration- related threats against her.) It is undisputed that the employer’s conduct was prohibited by the Labor Code. The question here is whether a report of unlawful activities made to an employer or agency that already knew about the violation is a protected “disclosure” within the meaning of section 1102.5(b). We hold it is. I. From May 2010 to April 2014, complainant A.C.R. worked as a bartender at Kolla’s, Inc., a nightclub in Orange County. 1 PEOPLE ex rel. GARCIA-BROWER v. KOLLA’S, INC. Opinion of the Court by Liu, J. Because neither Kolla’s nor the club’s owner, Gonzalo Sanalla Estrada, has participated in this litigation, we take the facts as presented in the Labor Commissioner’s complaint and accepted by the trial court. On April 5, 2014, A.C.R. complained to Estrada that she had not been paid wages owed for her previous three shifts of work. Estrada responded by threatening to report A.C.R. to immigration authorities, terminating her employment, and telling her never to return to the club. In June 2014, A.C.R. filed a complaint against Estrada and Kolla’s with DLSE, which opened an investigation. After determining that Estrada’s immigration-based threats and termination of A.C.R. violated California law, DLSE notified Estrada and Kolla’s of proposed remedies, including payment of lost wages to A.C.R., reinstatement of A.C.R.’s previous position, and payment of civil penalties to A.C.R. and DLSE. After Estrada and Kolla’s declined to accept DLSE’s proposed remedies, the Labor Commissioner sued them for violations of the Labor Code, including retaliation in violation of section 1102.5(b). The trial court entered an order granting in part the Labor Commissioner’s application for default judgment but ruled against the Labor Commissioner on the section 1102.5(b) claim. The court held that the Labor …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals