Tenpas

DISCUSSION

In reviewing a pleading against the challenge of a general demurrer, we read the

allegations generously and liberally construe the pleading with a view to substantial

justice between the parties. (Jones v. ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187,

1193-1194.) Under this standard, plaintiff has stated a cause of action under Labor Code

section 1102.5.

First, Carter v. Escondido Union High School Dist. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 922

does not hold that a plaintiff must allege a specific statute; the holding of the case is

simply that a report of questionable practices which violate no law does not bring Labor

Code section 1102.5 into play. Love v. Motion Indus., Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2004) 309

F.Supp.2d 1128 involved a summary judgment and is not helpful where the issue is one

of pleading.

Here, plaintiff alleges that she believed the proposed hiring of “Marissa”

implicated “violations of federal immigration law” which require that “every employer

verify each employee’s identity and work authorization . . . [and] have each employee fill

out an I-9 immigration form.” This is readily sufficient to allow an employer to

2 determine what law the plaintiff believes…