Retaliation Verdict Reversed Where Plaintiff Obtained No Relief
Can an employee prove retaliation at trial yet still recover nothing – not even attorney’s fees? According to a recent decision from the California Court of Appeal, the answer is yes. In Lampkin v. County of Los Angeles, the court held that a plaintiff who established unlawful retaliation was not entitled to fees or costs because the employer prevailed on the “same decision” defense (an employer’s defense that it would have taken the same adverse action for legitimate reasons, even if the employee had not engaged in protected activity). The ruling clarifies that a finding of liability is not enough to constitute a “successful action” under Labor Code section 1102.5 and reinforces the practical strength of the statutory defense provided by section 1102.6.
Background: Jury Finds Retaliation but Awards No Damages
The plaintiff, D’Andre Lampkin, served as a deputy in the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. He alleged that after stopping a retired deputy and reporting the encounter to his supervisor, he became the target of retaliation by others within the department. The alleged acts included a suspension, a search of his home, and termination of his medical benefits. Lampkin filed a single-count whistleblower retaliation claim under Labor Code section 1102.5.
The case went to trial, where the jury agreed that the department had retaliated against Lampkin. However, it also found that the department would have taken the same actions for legitimate and independent reasons. This triggered the “same decision” defense under section 1102.6, and the jury awarded no damages.
Even so, the trial court awarded Lampkin more than $400,000 in attorney’s fees. It relied on Harris v. City of Santa Monica, a case under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), where the plaintiff prevailed on liability but was denied damages based on a similar defense. The County appealed.
Court of Appeal: No Relief Means No Fee Recovery
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a plaintiff who obtains no relief is not entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 1102.5. The court distinguished Harris on several grounds:
- Harris involved FEHA, which expressly permits courts to award fees at their discretion to a prevailing party. In contrast, section 1102.5 authorizes fees only where a plaintiff brings a “successful action.”
- The jury’s finding of retaliation did not entitle Lampkin to relief, since the County proved its affirmative defense under section 1102.6.
- Lampkin did not recover any damages, and the trial court had rejected his attempt to amend the complaint to request injunctive or declaratory relief.
The court emphasized that under the statutory framework provided by sections 1102.5 and 1102.6, the defense defeats liability entirely. Relying in part on Ververka v. Department of Veterans Affairs, the court explained that once the employer proves the same decision defense, the case ends – no damages, no injunctive relief, and no attorney’s fees.
What This Means for California Employers
This decision provides a clear win for employers facing whistleblower retaliation claims. Key takeaways include:
- A finding of retaliatory motive under section 1102.5 does not, on its own, entitle a plaintiff to recovery. If the employer can show it would have taken the same action anyway, no relief is available.
- Section 1102.5 does not incorporate FEHA’s discretionary fee standard. Attorney’s fees may be awarded only when a plaintiff brings a “successful action,” which requires obtaining actual relief.
- Employers who successfully assert the same decision defense can avoid both damages and fee exposure under section 1102.5.
The Lampkin ruling offers valuable guidance to employers litigating whistleblower claims and reinforces the importance of documenting legitimate, independent reasons for adverse employment decisions.
If you have questions about whistleblower retaliation claims or how this decision may affect your organization, feel free to contact the blog author or your favorite CDF attorney.
*Special thanks to CDF law clerk Victor Weber for their research and contributions to this article.
