## Facts

- Clayton Del Thibodeau worked for ADT as a Residential High Volume Sales Representative in San Diego from September 2014 to October 2015.
- His role focused on obtaining new residential sales and upgrades and tracking orders through installation and customer satisfaction.
- ADT assigned written sales quotas to high-volume sales representatives.
- Thibodeau failed to meet quota in June 2015 and received a written warning on July 1, 2015; he later failed to meet quotas in August and September 2015 and was written up on September 29, 2015.
- On July 22, 2015, Thibodeau sent a letter to an ADT official complaining about allegedly unethical management and sales practices; ADT interviewed him about these complaints in July and August.
- Thibodeau alleged certain sales practices were deceptive (e.g., obscuring ADT’s identity in voicemails; advertising a “free” system without initially disclosing a two-year service requirement).
- Thibodeau resigned on October 2, 2015, and alleged retaliation in the form of discipline, denial of a promotion and transfer, and constructive termination.
- In opposing summary judgment, Thibodeau did not present admissible evidence showing he reported specific suspected legal violations to covered recipients; some assertions appeared only in pleadings.

## Issues

1. Whether Thibodeau produced sufficient evidence that he engaged in “protected activity” under California Labor Code § 1102.5 by reporting reasonably suspected violations of law.
2. Whether, absent evidence of protected activity, ADT was entitled to summary judgment on the whistleblower retaliation claim.

## Decision

- The district court granted ADT partial summary judgment on Thibodeau’s whistleblower retaliation claim under Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5.
- The court held Thibodeau failed to raise a triable issue that he engaged in protected activity because the summary judgment record did not show he made a qualifying report of reasonably suspected illegality.
- The court treated unsupported assertions in pleadings as insufficient at the summary judgment stage.
- Because the protected-activity element failed, the court did not need to resolve the remaining retaliation elements in detail.
- The Ninth Circuit later affirmed summary judgment on the whistleblower retaliation claim on the ground that Thibodeau failed to show protected activity.

## Legal Principles

- A Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5 retaliation claim is evaluated under a burden-shifting framework: (1) prima facie showing of protected activity, adverse action, and causation; (2) employer’s legitimate reason; (3) employee’s showing of pretext.
- “Protected activity” requires evidence the employee reported reasonably based suspicions of a violation of a statute, rule, or regulation to a covered person or agency.
- General complaints about ethics or internal business practices, without evidence of a communicated suspicion of illegality, do not establish protected activity under § 1102.5.
- At summary judgment, allegations in pleadings and conclusory assertions do not create a genuine factual dispute; the nonmovant must produce admissible evidence showing specific facts (including what was reported, to whom, and when).

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for ADT on the § 1102.5 whistleblower retaliation claim because Thibodeau did not present admissible evidence that he made a qualifying report of reasonably suspected legal violations, which is a threshold requirement for statutory whistleblower protection.


Thibodeau v. ADT Sec. Servs., No. 16-cv-02680-GPC-AGS, 2018 WL 637947 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2018)