Please read the provided case excerpt for State v Thomasina and answer the following questions Outline for a Case Brief 1 Facts a) What happened with the people involved in this case b) What was decided by the courts below (aka procedural history) 2 Issue What question was the Court addressing 3 Decision What did the Court decide 4 Reason Why did the Court make the decision it made State v Thomasina's Supreme Court of California I From May 2010 to April 2014, complainant P A U worked as a bartender at Thomasina's, Inc , a nightclub in Orange County On April 5, 2014, P A U complained to Marx that she had not been paid wages owed for her previous three shifts of work Marx responded by threatening to report P A U to immigration authorities, terminating her employment, and telling her never to return to the club In June 2014, P A U filed a complaint against Marx and Thomasina's with Division of Labor Standards Enforcement DLSE, which opened an investigation After determining that Marx's immigration based threats 3 and termination of P A U violated California law, DLSE notified Marx and Thomasina's of proposed remedies, including payment of lost wages to P A U , reinstatement of P A U 's previous position, and payment of civil penalties to P A U and DLSE After Marx and Thomasina'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 Commissioner did not state a valid cause of action under section 1102 5(b) because P A U reported her complaints to her employer rather than a government agency The Labor Commissioner appealed The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had relied on an outdated version of section 1102 5(b) and that the current version of the law protects 722 disclosures made to one's employer The Court of Appeal nonetheless affirmed the trial court's judgment on the section 1102 5(b) claim, concluding that a private employee's report of unlawful activity directly to his or her wrongdoing employer is not a protected disclosure under section 1102 5(b) The court 4 reasoned that the term disclose requires the revelation of something new, or at least believed by the discloser to be new, to the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made The court explained that Marx, as the owner of the nightclub, was at least aware ofif not responsible forthe non payment of wages and that an 'employee's report to the employee's supervisor about the supervisor's own wrongdoing is not a disclosure and is not protected whistleblowing activity, because the employer already knows about his or her wrongdoing ' II The Legislature enacted section 1102 5 in 1984 to provide whistleblowers with protection from employer retaliation In full, section 1102 5(b) provides An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the 7 employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties Page 1 of 4 State v Thomasina's In this case, the Court of Appeal relied on Mize Kurzman and sought to distinguish Hager on the ground that Hager focused on whether section 1102 5 includes a 'first report' rule that is, whether whistleblower protections apply only to the first employee to report wrongdoing, such that a disclosure cannot include information previously reported by other employees ( Hager , supra , 228 Cal App 4th at p 1550 ) The Court of Appeal also reasoned that because Hager , like Mize Kurzman but unlike the present case, involved a public employee, section 1102 5(e) governed the court's analysis and protected an employee's report of wrongdoing III (1) When interpreting a statute, we adopt the construction that best reflects the Legislature's purpose A (2) We begin by examining the text of the statute The Court of Appeal held that the word disclosure means the revelation of something new, or at least believed by the discloser to be new, to the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made But dictionary definitions of disclose include to make openly known (4 Oxford English Dict (2d ed 1989) p 738, col 1) and to open up to general knowledge (Webster's 3d New Internat Dict (2002) p 645, col 2) The Labor Commissioner argues that according to these definitions the information disclosed need not be previously unknown to the recipient We agree To make something openly known (4 Oxford English Dict , supra , p 738, col 1) or open something up to general knowledge (Webster's 3d New Internat Dict , supra , p 645, col 2) does not require that the something be unknown to the current recipient B (3) Where a statute is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, we consider 'the ostensible objectives to be achieved by the statute, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a 728 part ' about violations of the law Sen Com on Industrial Relations, Analysis of Assem Bill No 2452 (1983 1984 Reg Sess ) as amended Apr 26, 1984, pp 1 2 bill protects providing information to a government agency and reporting crimes Dept of Industrial Relations, DLSE, Enrolled Bill Rep on Assem Bill No 2452 (1983 1984 Reg Sess ) Aug 22, 1984, p 1 intent of bill is to protect workers who report crimes by making complaints to the Labor Commissioner ) Amendments to section 1102 5(b) in 2013, which are directly implicated by this case, further support a broad reading of the term disclose In that 729 year, three proposed bills sought to amend section 1102 5(b) Senate Bill No 666 (2013 2014 Reg Sess ) (Senate Bill 666), Assembly Bill 18 No 263 (2013 2014 Reg Sess ) (Assembly Bill 263), and Senate Bill No 496 (2013 2014 Reg Sess ) (Senate Bill 496) The first two bills centered on immigration related protections the third focused on expanding whistleblower protections to cover internal disclosures The section 1102 5 amendments within the three bills were closely related, with each bill containing changes to section 1102 5(b) originally proposed by Senate Bill 496 and a provision that those changes would take effect through whichever bill was enacted last (Stats 2013, ch 577, 5, 5 5, 7 Stats 2013, ch 732, 6, 6 5, 9 Stats 2013, ch 781, 4, 4 1, 5 ) Because these three bills were enacted at the same time on the same subject, we read them as having a common policy goal and an intention to take effect together (1A Singer and Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction (7th ed 2013) 23 18 If the same legislative session enacts two or more acts on the same subject they are presumed to embody the same policy and have been intended to have effect together ) As enacted, Assembly Bill 263 declared It is in the public policy interest of the State of California that workers be able to report concerns to their employers without fear of retaliation or discrimination (Stats 2013, ch 732, 1, subd (h) ) The Legislature's stated aim to protect workers 19 who report concerns to their employers ( ibid ) is entitled to significant weight in discerning the statute's purpose Page 2 of 4 State v Thomasina's The 2013 amendments also expanded whistleblower protections beyond disclosures made to a government or law enforcement agency to include disclosures made to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation ( 1102 5(b), as amended by Stats 2013, ch 732, 6 ) As noted, the statute does not limit its protections to a disclosure directed to a person with the authority to discover the alleged violation (i e , a person who previously did not know about the alleged violation) instead, it also protects a disclosure made to a person with the authority to investigate or correct the violation, even if the disclosure does not cause the person to discover the violation ( Ibid ) Conversely, an employee may reasonably feel more willing to approach an employer about workplace safety hazards, unpaid wages, or overtime violations knowing that his or her coworkers were also disclosing the same unlawful activity An employer may also be more likely to ameliorate violations, and less able to sweep them under the rug, when multiple employees have disclosed the same wrongdoing The Court of Appeal decision would limit the ability of employees to report violations, corroborate a coworker's disclosure, or encourage their employers to remedy violations of 22 the law Although it is the Legislature's prerogative to impose such limitations, nothing in the legislative history indicates an intent to do so In developing the statute, the relevant committees spoke clearly and repeatedly about the purposes and reasoning behind the enactment and expansion of section 1102 5(b) to protect workers, to encourage disclosure, and to promote compliance with employment related laws and regulations Moreover, the language of section 1102 5(b) does not support a first known report rule The only reference to an employee's state of mind in section 1102 5(b) is the requirement that the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a legal violation ( Ibid ) The statute thus does not protect employees who do not believe or who unreasonably believe that the information they are disclosing shows a violation of the law However, there is no indication that an employee must also have reasonable cause to believe that he or she is the first to report the alleged violation, and we see no basis for reading such a requirement into the statute Page 3 of 4 State v Thomasina's The Court of Appeal's interpretation risks limiting internal disclosures, as employees may fear that reporting wrongdoing to their employers, who may know of the alleged violations, would leave them unprotected under section 1102 5(b) Although employees might instead report the violations to a government agency, the Legislature's 2013 amendments expanded antiretaliation protections to cover internal disclosures, simultaneously providing employees with protection and employers with the opportunity to correct wrongdoing without government involvement In sum, we hold that a protected disclosure under section 1102 5(b) encompasses reports or complaints of a violation made to an employer or agency even if the recipient 30 already knows of the violation We further conclude that complainant P A U made a disclosure protected by section 1102 5(b) And we disapprove Mize Kurzman v Marin Community College Dist , supra , 202 Cal App 4th 832 to the extent it is inconsistent with today's opinion CONCLUSION We remand this case to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

Question

Please read the provided case excerpt for State v  Thomasina and answer the following questions  Outline for a Case Brief 1  Facts a) What happened with the people involved in this case  b) What was decided by the courts below  (aka procedural history) 2 Issue  What question was the Court addressing  3  Decision  What did the Court decide  4  Reason  Why did the Court make the decision it made  State v  Thomasina's Supreme Court of California I  From May 2010 to April 2014, complainant P A U  worked as a bartender at Thomasina's, Inc , a nightclub in Orange County      On April 5, 2014, P A U  complained to Marx that she had not been paid wages owed for her previous three shifts of work  Marx responded by threatening to report P A U  to immigration authorities, terminating her employment, and telling her never to return to the club  In June 2014, P A U  filed a complaint against Marx and Thomasina's with  Division of Labor Standards Enforcement  DLSE, which opened an investigation  After determining that Marx's immigration based threats    3  and termination of P A U  violated California law, DLSE notified Marx and Thomasina's of proposed remedies, including payment of lost wages to P A U , reinstatement of P A U 's previous position, and payment of civil penalties to P A U  and DLSE  After Marx and Thomasina'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 Commissioner did not state a valid cause of action under section 1102 5(b) because P A U  reported her complaints to her employer rather than a government agency  The Labor Commissioner appealed  The Court of Appeal held that the trial court had relied on an outdated version of section 1102 5(b) and that the current version of the law protects  722  disclosures made to one's employer  The Court of Appeal nonetheless affirmed the trial court's judgment on the section 1102 5(b) claim, concluding that a private employee's report of unlawful activity directly to his or her wrongdoing employer is not a protected disclosure under section 1102 5(b)  The court    4  reasoned that the term  disclose  requires  the revelation of something new, or at least believed by the discloser to be new, to the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made   The court explained that Marx, as the owner of the nightclub,  was at least aware ofif not responsible forthe non payment of wages  and that an  'employee's report to the employee's supervisor about the supervisor's own wrongdoing is not a  disclosure  and is not protected whistleblowing activity, because the employer already knows about his or her wrongdoing '      II  The Legislature enacted section 1102 5 in 1984 to provide whistleblowers with protection from employer retaliation      In full, section 1102 5(b) provides   An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the    7  employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties      Page 1 of 4 State v  Thomasina's In this case, the Court of Appeal relied on Mize Kurzman and sought to distinguish Hager on the ground that Hager focused on whether section 1102 5 includes a  'first report' rule that is, whether whistleblower protections apply only to the first employee to report wrongdoing, such that a  disclosure  cannot include information previously reported by other employees  ( Hager , supra , 228 Cal App 4th at p  1550 ) The Court of Appeal also reasoned that because Hager , like Mize Kurzman but unlike the present case, involved a public employee, section 1102 5(e) governed the court's analysis and protected an employee's  report  of wrongdoing  III  (1) When interpreting a statute, we adopt the construction that best reflects the Legislature's purpose     A  (2) We begin by examining the text of the statute  The Court of Appeal held that the word  disclosure  means  the revelation of something new, or at least believed by the discloser to be new, to the person or agency to whom the disclosure is made   But dictionary definitions of  disclose  include  to make openly known  (4 Oxford English Dict  (2d ed  1989) p  738, col  1) and to  open up to general knowledge  (Webster's 3d New Internat  Dict  (2002) p  645, col  2)  The Labor Commissioner argues that according to these definitions the information disclosed need not be previously unknown to the recipient  We agree  To  make  something  openly known  (4 Oxford English Dict , supra , p  738, col  1) or  open  something  up to general knowledge  (Webster's 3d New Internat  Dict , supra , p  645, col  2) does not require that the  something  be unknown to the current recipient    B  (3) Where a statute is subject to  more than one reasonable interpretation, we consider 'the ostensible objectives to be achieved by the statute, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, contemporaneous administrative construction and the statutory scheme of which the statute is a  728  part '  about violations of the law   Sen  Com  on Industrial Relations, Analysis of Assem  Bill No  2452 (1983 1984 Reg  Sess ) as amended Apr  26, 1984, pp  1 2  bill protects  providing information  to a government agency and  reporting crimes    Dept  of Industrial Relations, DLSE, Enrolled Bill Rep  on Assem  Bill No  2452 (1983 1984 Reg  Sess ) Aug  22, 1984, p  1  intent of bill is to protect workers who  report   crimes  by making  complaints  to the Labor Commissioner  )    Amendments to section 1102 5(b) in 2013, which are directly implicated by this case, further support a broad reading of the term  disclose   In that  729  year, three proposed bills sought to amend section 1102 5(b)  Senate Bill No  666 (2013 2014 Reg  Sess ) (Senate Bill 666), Assembly Bill    18  No  263 (2013 2014 Reg  Sess ) (Assembly Bill 263), and Senate Bill No  496 (2013 2014 Reg  Sess ) (Senate Bill 496)  The first two bills centered on immigration related protections  the third focused on expanding whistleblower protections to cover internal disclosures  The section 1102 5 amendments within the three bills were closely related, with each bill containing changes to section 1102 5(b) originally proposed by Senate Bill 496 and a provision that those changes would take effect through whichever bill was enacted last  (Stats  2013, ch  577, 5, 5 5, 7  Stats  2013, ch  732, 6, 6 5, 9  Stats  2013, ch  781, 4, 4 1, 5 ) Because these three bills were enacted at the same time on the same subject, we read them as having a common policy goal and an intention to take effect together  (1A Singer and Singer, Statutes and Statutory Construction (7th ed  2013) 23 18   If the same legislative session enacts two or more acts on the same subject they are presumed to embody the same policy and have been intended to have effect together    ) As enacted, Assembly Bill 263 declared   It is in the public policy interest of the State of California that workers be able to report concerns to their employers without fear of retaliation or discrimination   (Stats  2013, ch  732, 1, subd  (h) ) The Legislature's stated aim to protect workers    19  who  report concerns to their employers  ( ibid  ) is entitled to significant weight in discerning the statute's purpose  Page 2 of 4 State v  Thomasina's The 2013 amendments also expanded whistleblower protections beyond disclosures made to a government or law enforcement agency to include disclosures made  to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation   ( 1102 5(b), as amended by Stats  2013, ch  732, 6 ) As noted, the statute does not limit its protections to a disclosure directed to a person with the authority to  discover  the alleged violation (i e , a person who previously did not know about the alleged violation)  instead, it also protects a disclosure made to a person with the authority to  investigate     or correct  the violation, even if the disclosure does not cause the person to  discover  the violation  ( Ibid  )    Conversely, an employee may reasonably feel more willing to approach an employer about workplace safety hazards, unpaid wages, or overtime violations knowing that his or her coworkers were also disclosing the same unlawful activity  An employer may also be more likely to ameliorate violations, and less able to sweep them under the rug, when multiple employees have disclosed the same wrongdoing  The Court of Appeal decision would limit the ability of employees to report violations, corroborate a coworker's disclosure, or encourage their employers to remedy violations of    22  the law  Although it is the Legislature's prerogative to impose such limitations, nothing in the legislative history indicates an intent to do so  In developing the statute, the relevant committees spoke clearly and repeatedly about the purposes and reasoning behind the enactment and expansion of section 1102 5(b)  to protect workers, to encourage disclosure, and to promote compliance with employment related laws and regulations      Moreover, the language of section 1102 5(b) does not support a  first known report  rule  The only reference to an employee's state of mind in section 1102 5(b) is the requirement that the employee  has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a  legal  violation   ( Ibid  ) The statute thus does not protect employees who do not believe or who unreasonably believe that the information they are disclosing shows a violation of the law  However, there is no indication that an employee must also have reasonable cause to believe that he or she is the first to report the alleged violation, and we see no basis for reading such a requirement into the statute  Page 3 of 4 State v  Thomasina's The Court of Appeal's interpretation risks limiting internal disclosures, as employees may fear that reporting wrongdoing to their employers, who may know of the alleged violations, would leave them unprotected under section 1102 5(b)  Although employees might instead report the violations to a government agency, the Legislature's 2013 amendments expanded antiretaliation protections to cover internal disclosures, simultaneously providing employees with protection and employers with the opportunity to correct wrongdoing without government involvement      In sum, we hold that a protected disclosure under section 1102 5(b) encompasses reports or complaints of a violation made to an employer or agency even if the recipient    30  already knows of the violation  We further conclude that complainant P A U  made a disclosure protected by section 1102 5(b)  And we disapprove Mize Kurzman v  Marin Community College Dist  , supra , 202 Cal App 4th 832 to the extent it is inconsistent with today's opinion  CONCLUSION We remand this case to the Court of Appeal for further proceedings consistent with this opinion

SolutionInn · Accepted Answer

The Answer is in the image, click to view ...

Question: Please read the provided case excerpt for State v. Thomasina and answer the following questions. Outline for a Case Brief 1. Facts a) What happened

Step by Step Solution