Wage Complaints in California: Lessons from Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce
What should employers do when an employee complains about not being paid enough? For most employers, it is a difficult conversation to have. In Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce (Dec. 2025) 116 Cal. App. 5th 1251, the employer learned that terminating the employee resulted in an expensive legal battle.
Employer Case Study: Don’t Do This
The Plaintiff, Manuel Contreras, discovered that he earned less pay than other employees with similar job duties at Green Thumb Produce, Inc. He repeatedly brought the issue to his supervisor, then contacted the Labor Commissioner’s office. The Labor Commissioner advised Plaintiff that Green Thumb may be violating the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and directed Contreras to the Labor Commissioner’s website for more information.
Plaintiff found a Frequently Asked Questions page regarding the EPA. Equipped with the FAQs, Contreras came to work intending to show this to HR and ask for a raise. During his lunch break that day, Plaintiff’s supervisor saw him holding the FAQs and speaking to co-workers. The supervisor then accompanied Contreras to the human resources department.
At the meeting, Plaintiff handed HR the FAQs and asked for a raise. HR told Contreras “he should not be showing the FAQs to employees,” questioned why he contacted the Labor Commissioner, and eventually denied the raise.
In response, the Plaintiff told HR “that he would no longer be driving a forklift.” HR accused Contreras of insubordination, and Plaintiff’s manager instructed him to go home. The next day, Green Thumb terminated Plaintiff’s employment.
Contreras sued Green Thumb, asserting three retaliatory causes of action, including under Labor Code § 1102.5.
Misinterpreting Laws May Create Whistleblower Protections
The EPA prohibits pay disparity based on sex, race, or ethnicity. At trial, Contreras testified that while he thought Green Thumb violated the EPA, he did not believe the employer based his unequal wages on his sex, race, or ethnicity.
In view of Plaintiff’s testimony, the trial court held Plaintiff could not claim whistleblower protections under Labor Code § 1102.5 based on “non-existent law.”
Plaintiff appealed, arguing a reasonable belief of EPA violation warrants § 1102.5 protection. The Court of Appeal agreed, reasoning that: “[while] a section 1102.5 claimant may not rely on a perceived violation of a nonexistent law. . .” The Plaintiff pointed to “some legal foundation for his suspicion” – the EPA.
Per the Court of Appeal, Plaintiff’s “misinterpretation of the law does not necessarily undermine his [whistleblower] claim.” It is enough “to have ‘reasonable cause’ to believe that a law has been violated. There is no requirement that the employee prove an actual violation.”
Accordingly, the Court reasoned that section 1102.5 provides relief for an employee who reasonably believes a legal violation occurred, even if they incorrectly analyzed the specific nuances of that law.
Notes for California Employers
Please remember that employees have a protected right to discuss the terms and conditions of their employment. Disciplining an employee for contacting the Labor Commissioner, discussing wages, or sharing legal guidance with co-workers is risky and may result in costly litigation.
Even with a legitimate basis for discipline, such as clear misconduct, acting so closely following an employee’s protected activity creates an inference of retaliation. Notably, California Senate Bill 497 established a rebuttable presumption in favor of an employee’s retaliation claim if an employer takes adverse action within 90 days of the protected activity.
Employers with questions or concerns regarding employee complaints should contact legal counsel before taking disciplinary action to ensure compliance and mitigate risks.
Tal Burnovski Yeyni and Molly K. Thorpe defend employers from California wage and hour claims.