Manuel Contreras worked for Green Thumb Produce, Inc., a produce packaging company, from 2016 to 2020, primarily in the sanitation department driving forklifts. During his employment, he discovered he was being paid less than other employees performing similar duties, including some with less seniority. He raised this pay disparity with his supervisors multiple times, but no action was taken. In August 2020, Contreras researched his legal rights, believing the law required equal pay for equal work. He contacted the Labor Commissioner’s Office in San Bernardino County, where a deputy labor commissioner suggested Green Thumb might be violating the law and referred him to the California Equal Pay Act (EPA) and the office’s website.
Contreras reviewed a seven-page FAQ document titled “California Equal Pay Act: Frequently Asked Questions,” which he interpreted as applying to his situation, even though he did not believe the pay difference was due to his gender, race, or ethnicity. On September 3, 2020, he brought the FAQ to work to request a raise from human resources. During lunch, he discussed it with coworkers to find a witness, leading to an encounter with his manager, Miguel Ramos, who took him to HR manager Sendy Ochoa. Contreras explained the FAQ and requested a raise, but Ochoa denied it, accused him of insubordination after he stated he would no longer drive a forklift (meaning additional duties, not his primary one), and sent him home. The next day, Contreras was terminated via security escort and a letter citing violations of company policies, such as disrupting work and refusing instructions.
In 2021, Contreras sued Green Thumb Produce, Inc., for wrongful termination. In his operative first amended complaint filed in 2023, he asserted three causes of action under the California Labor Code: (1) retaliation for exercising employment rights (§ 98.6), (2) whistleblower retaliation (§ 1102.5(b)), alleging he was fired for reporting a believed EPA violation, and (3) retaliation for discussing wages (§ 232). The case proceeded to a jury trial in 2023. The jury found in Contreras’s favor on all three claims, awarding $53,000 in past economic damages, $72,428 in future economic damages, and $47,000 in past non-economic damages, totaling $172,428, plus statutory penalties.
After the verdict, Green Thumb filed a motion for partial judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on August 18, 2023, challenging only the whistleblower retaliation claim under § 1102.5(b). The trial court granted the partial JNOV, ruling that Contreras’s testimony showed he had not complained of any actual legal violation and could not “make up a non-existent law” for § 1102.5 protections. It entered a second amended judgment on November 20, 2023, reducing penalties to $10,000 (for § 98.6 only) and awarding Contreras $182,428 total. Contreras appealed this ruling, arguing substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding of his reasonable belief in an EPA violation.
The Court of Appeal reversed the JNOV ruling and directed the trial court to reinstate the jury’s verdict in the published case of Contreras v Green Thumb Produce -D085440 (December 2025).
The Court of Appeal first clarified that § 1102.5(b), California’s whistleblower statute, protects employees from retaliation for disclosing information they reasonably believe reveals a legal violation, emphasizing objective reasonableness without requiring proof of an actual violation.
It rejected Green Thumb’s argument that a mistaken legal interpretation automatically defeats a claim, identifying three scenarios of employee mistakes (law, facts, or both) and focusing on reasonableness to align with the statute’s purpose of encouraging reports without fear.
The court dismissed hypotheticals of patently unreasonable beliefs (e.g., mandatory 100% raises) as failing the objective reasonableness test. It then found substantial evidence supporting the jury’s verdict: Contreras’s consultation with a deputy labor commissioner (who suggested a possible violation), his lay interpretation of the FAQ (which often omitted protected classes and could mislead a non-lawyer), and his testimony.
The FAQ’s structure, starting with expansions beyond original gender protections and questions like 9 focusing on “substantially similar work,” supported a reasonable lay misinterpretation, especially given the EPA’s name and Contreras’s limited education. The court distinguished this from cases where no legal foundation was cited, noting Contreras pointed to the EPA as his basis.