California has two statutes, Labor Code sections 232 and 232.5,
that protect the rights of employees to disclose information about
their compensation or working conditions. The first, Labor Code
section 232, was enacted in 1984, provides:
No employer may do any of the following:
(a) Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing the amount of his or her wages.
(b)
Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to
deny the employee the right to disclose the amount of his or her wages.
(c) Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who discloses the amount of his or her wages.
This statute was broadly interpreted by the Court of Appeal in Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 136.
There, the court upheld a claim for wrongful termination against public
policy after an employee was allegedly terminated for telling
co-employees (during an exchange of information between co-employees)
that she did not receive a bonus. The court held that (a) section 232
set forth the public policy of the state protecting employees from
adverse employment action for disclosing information about “wages,” and
(b) that the statute was intended to protect employees who wanted to
discuss “some aspect of their compensation, for example, a possible
increase in pay, perceived disparities in pay, or the awarding of
bonuses.”
Only months after the court’s Grant Burton decision, the legislature enacted Labor Code section 232.5:
No employer may do any of the following:
(a) Require, as a condition of employment, that an
employee refrain from disclosing information about the employer's
working conditions.
(b) Require an employee to sign a waiver or other
document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose
information about the employer's working conditions.
(c) Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise
discriminate against an employee who discloses information about the
employer's working conditions.
(d) This section is not intended to permit an
employee to disclose proprietary information, trade secret information,
or information that is otherwise subject to a legal privilege without
the consent of his or her employer.
In the following six years, no California court has issued a published decision involving section 232.5. . . . . until now.
More after the jump.
