Understanding the Burden of Proof for California Employment Law Cases

Unfortunately, disputes between employees and employers are common in the United States, with California not being an exception. Disputes can arise regarding various issues, including wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, wage and hour violations, and harassment. If you are an employee in California considering filing an employment law-related legal claim, it is crucial that you understand the burden of proof. This article discusses the burden of proof for California employment law cases.

The Standard Burden of Proof in California Employment Cases

The burden of proof is a legal standard used in legal cases (both civil and criminal) to determine who must present evidence to prove or disprove a claim, and how convincing that evidence must be. In California, the burden of proof usually rests on the employees seeking justice in an employment law-related claim. Often, you are required to prove your case by a preponderance of the evidence, which means you must present evidence that shows that your employer is more likely than not guilty of engaging in unlawful conduct. If you can tip the scale of justice even slightly in your favor, you have met this standard.

However, in some employment cases, the burden of proof can be shifted to the employer once the employee meets their initial burden of proof. Some cases may even require the employer to meet a higher burden of proof.

Burden-Shifting in Discrimination Cases

For discrimination cases in California, courts often use the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. Under this framework, you, as the employee, must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. If you succeed, then the burden of proof shifts to the employer. The employer must provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for their action. After that, you have the opportunity to prove that the employer’s stated reason is false or a pretext for discrimination.

The Evidentiary Standard for Whistleblower Retaliation and Other Retaliation Claims

Whistleblower retaliation and other retaliation claims in California follow special rules. These claims are governed by California Labor Code section 1102.6. Employees who file whistleblower retaliation and other retaliation claims aren’t required to meet the McDonnell Douglas test. Instead;

• As the employee, you have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that retaliation for your protected activities was a contributing factor in the employer’s adverse actions.
• The employer must then prove by clear and convincing evidence that they would have taken the same action for a legitimate, independent reason, even if you had not engaged in protected activity.

With the McDonnell Douglas test, an employer may escape liability if they state a non-retaliatory reason for their actions, unless you can show their reason was a pretext for retaliation. The “clear and convincing” standard makes it hard for employers to escape liability, as it is a higher, more demanding level of proof than preponderance.

SB 497

SB 497, which became effective in January last year, gives workers stronger protections in retaliation cases. This law creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if you engage in protected activity and subsequently face disciplinary action or termination within 90 days. If the presumption applies, the employer must prove that the adverse action was not retaliatory.

Protecting Your Rights

Here are some tips to help you protect your rights as an employee;

• Understand which standard applies to your case
• Gather and preserve evidence
• Note when the adverse action took place
• Consult an employment lawyer early

Contact a California Employment Lawyer

If you believe your employment rights have been violated, contact a California employment lawyer near you for legal help.