William Lukov v. Schindler Elevator Corp

MEMORANDUM

William Lukov appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Schindler Elevator Corporation. Lukov claimed that Schindler violated California Labor Code §§ 6310 and 1102.5 and California common law by terminating him in retaliation for reporting an unsafe Nordstrom elevator to Schindler and the California Department of Occupational Safety and Health. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and reverse and remand.

The district court erred when it held that Lukov could not prove that he engaged in protected activity because he did not step outside of his role of reporting elevator code violations. Although the California Supreme Court has not addressed the issue, state appellate courts have refused to extend- the federal “step outside of his role” rule to California wrongful termination claims. See, e.g., McVeigh v. Recology San Francisco, 213 Cal.App.4th 443 , 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 595, 617 (2013); Storm v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., No. B228091, 2011 WL 6004447 , at *10-11 (Cal. Ct.App. Dec.l, 2011) (unpublished opinion). Consistent with McVeigh , California has amended the whistle blower statute to apply “regardless of whether disclosing the…