Circumstantial evidence can prove retaliatory antiwhistleblower motive

Wrongful termination suits often rely on proof of motive—did the employer terminate the employee for an unlawful reason? But employers that act for illegal motives aren’t likely to admit it, so the law has established ways to prove unlawful motives through circumstantial evidence. But there is more than one formula for that proof, depending on the situation. The California Supreme Court recently explained when those various formulas apply.

Bad performance or retaliation?

From 2015 until he was fired in 2017, Wallen Lawson worked as a territory manager for PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., a paint and coatings manufacturer. He was responsible for stocking and merchandising PPG paint products in Lowe’s home improvement stores in Southern California. The company rated Lawson’s performance in a number of ways. Initially, he received the highest possible ratings, but the positive evaluations didn’t last, as scores soon took a nosedive. In spring 2017, after he missed several monthly sales targets. PPG placed him on a performance improvement plan.

According to Lawson, that same spring, PPG began ordering him to intentionally deliver slow-selling paint in shades the customer had not ordered. He didn’t agree with the scheme, filed two anonymous complaints with the company’s central ethics hotline, and told his supervisor he refused to participate. Some months later, after determining Lawson had failed to meet the goals outlined in his performance improvement plan, PPG fired him.