• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Wagner Legal Group, P.C.

Wagner Legal Group, P.C.

  • ABOUT
    • ATTORNEYS
      • MARK H. WAGNER
      • OUTSIDE CO-COUNSEL
    • AREAS WE SERVE
    • ARTICLES
    • RESOURCES
    • RESULTS
    • CLIENT REVIEWS
    • VIDEOS
  • EMPLOYMENT
    • DISCRIMINATION
      • AGE DISCRIMINATION
      • DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
      • GENDER/SEX DISCRIMINATION
      • PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION
      • RACE/NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION
      • RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
    • EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND SEVERANCE REVIEW
    • HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
    • NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS
    • RETALIATION/
      WHISTLEBLOWER
    • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    • UNEMPLOYMENT
    • WAGE/HOUR
    • WRONGFUL TERMINATION
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
    • BUSINESS LITIGATION/BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS
    • PERSONAL INJURY
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT US

Blog

Taxpayer Privilege Does Not Protect Employer From Wrongful Termination

Taxpayer Privilege Does Not Protect Employer From Wrongful Termination

January 24, 2019 by Mark H. Wagner

In Siri v. Cutter Home Winery, Inc., the Court held that the implied taxpayer privilege did not preclude an employee from speaking up when she discovers that her employer is filing incorrect returns, nor does it preclude a wrongful termination claim if the employee is discharged for doing so.  The plaintiff brought to the attention of defendant’s management and the Board of Equalization defendant’s failure to have paid use taxes owed by the company.  She complained that as a result of her report, she was fired in violation of Labor Code section 1102.5 and public policy.   Defendant asserted the tax-payer privilege and refused to turn over the taxes.  The trial court dismissed the case, saying that the plaintiff could not prove the fraud without the returns, and defendant was not required to provide the returns.  The Court of Appeal held that the parties and trial court had confused the issues.  Plaintiff was not required to prove she was actually correct about her report, i.e., that the returns were fraudulent. She had to provide she had a reasonable basis to make a report and then she was retaliated against for the report, which she could prove without the actual returns.  Thus, summary judgment was improper and plaintiff could proceed with her case.

For more information, or if you need legal assistance, please contact the Wagner Legal Group, P.C. at (310) 857-5293 or fill out our contact form on the website.

Employment,  Litigation

Primary Sidebar

(310) 857-5293

Free Consultation

SCHEDULE

Practice Areas

  • EMPLOYMENT
    • DISCRIMINATION
      • AGE DISCRIMINATION
      • DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
      • Gender/Sex Discrimination
      • Pregnancy Discrimination
      • Race/National Origin Discrimination
      • Religious Discrimination
    • EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS AND SEVERANCE REVIEW
    • HARASSMENT/HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT
    • NON-COMPETE AGREEMENTS
    • RETALIATION/WHISTLEBLOWER
    • SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    • UNEMPLOYMENT
    • WAGE/HOUR
    • WRONGFUL TERMINATION
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
    • BUSINESS LITIGATION/BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS
    • PERSONAL INJURY

ARRANGE A FREE CONSULTATION

consult

Footer

  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • EMPLOYMENT LAW
  • OTHER PRACTICE AREAS
  • BLOG
  • CONTACT
(310) 857-5293

2601 Ocean Park Blvd, Suite 208, Santa Monica, CA 90405

Wagner Legal Group P.C.

Copyright © 2025 · Business Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

© 2023 WAGNER LEGAL GROUP, P.C. | Legal Disclaimer ● Privacy Policy ● Sitemap