Lenart Realty Corp. v. Petroleum Tank Cleaners, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that California law “places the burden on the plaintiff [in an action under § 1102.5] to establish . . . that retaliation for an 3 employee’s protected activities was a contributing factor in a contested employment action”
• noting the plaintiff “filed two anonymous complaints with [the defendant’s] central ethics hotline”
• to rebut the presumption of discrimination, the employer need only provide “clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the action in question for legitimate, independent reasons even had the plaintiff not engaged in protected activity”
• “Even if the employer had a genuine, 12 nonretaliatory reason for its adverse action, the plaintiff still carries the burden assigned by statute 13 if it is shown that the employer also had at least one retaliatory reason that was a contributing 14 factor in the action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).