Manuel Contreras was frustrated. He knew that several coworkers were doing the same job and getting paid more than he was, even though he had more seniority. He asked his supervisors several times about the pay disparity, but they took no action.
Believing that the law required equal pay for equal work, Mr. Contreras did some research. He called the California Labor Department, where a deputy commissioner told him that he might have a case, that California had an Equal Pay Act, and that he should look at the Department’s website for more information.
Mr. Contreras went to the website, printed out the “California Equal Pay Act: Frequently Asked Questions” page, and read it. Based on his discussion with the Labor Department and his understanding of the FAQs, Mr. Contreras believed that his employer had violated the state’s equal pay laws. He brought the FAQs to work with him and showed the document to some coworkers before he took it to HR in support of his request for a raise. The HR rep denied a raise, and told Mr. Contreras he should not have shown the FAQs to his coworkers.
When Mr. Contreras reported to work the next day, a security guard escorted him off the premises, informing him that he had been fired. Mr. Contreras sued, claiming retaliation for exercising his employment rights, whistleblower retaliation, and wage discussion retaliation. The jury found in Mr. Contreras’ favor on all counts, but the employer filed a motion with the trial court, pointing out that (1) since Mr. Contreras admitted that his pay disparity was not based on sex, race or ethnicity, the California Equal Pay Act did not apply to his case and (2) since there was no Equal Pay Act violation, Mr. Contreras was not a protected whistleblower. The judge agreed, and reduced the jury verdict to eliminate whistleblower liability.
On appeal, the upper court reinstated the full verdict. While confirming that the California statute does not bar all wage disparities, only those based on sex, race or ethnicity, the court said Mr. Contreras had reasonable cause to believe the employer violated the law—he did not have to prove an actual violation:
We acknowledge that as judges with years of legal education and experience, our reading of the entire FAQ correctly reflects that the EPA only prohibits discriminatory wage variations based on sex, race, or ethnicity. But a lay person with no formal legal training could easily misinterpret the FAQ similarly to Contreras, especially when told by a deputy labor commissioner that there was a potential violation. And that is why the decision in this case properly belonged to a jury of Contreras’s peers. The jurors had the FAQ to read for themselves, and they determined that Contreras’s mistaken legal analysis was reasonable from the perspective of a layperson.
Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc., 2025 Cal. App. LEXIS 822 (Cal App. Dec 15, 2025)
What this means to you:
Protecting whistleblowers encourages employees to report concerns without fear, helping organizations identify and resolve issues early. Even when a whistleblower’s interpretation of the law or facts turns out to be mistaken, their actions often stem from a genuine belief that something is amiss and a desire to address perceived injustices.
At Fair Measures, we train your managers to recognize and prevent retaliation against whistleblowers. Our proactive, interactive education helps ensure that managers respond to concerns with fairness and respect, fostering a culture where employees feel safe to speak up. Call us at 800-458-2778 or email us today to find out more about our 2026 Managing Within the Law workshops.
Updated 01-12-2026
Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.
