What is the standard of evidence required to support a claim of retaliation in an employment action?

The trial court declined to give appellant's two requested special instructions. Appellant must demonstrate not only that the trial court's rulings were erroneous, but also that she was prejudiced by them. (American Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1485-1486.)

1. Retaliation

The first refused instruction concerned appellant's retaliation claims. Appellant asked for the following instruction: "The plaintiff need not prove she complained about an actual violation of the law; rather, plaintiff must show [she] reported to the employer in good faith her reasonably based suspicion of unlawful activity. [] (Green v. Ralee Eng. Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 78 . . . .)" Respondent opposed the request, arguing, "[t]here is no evidence that [appellant] reported any reasonably based suspicion of unlawful activity or any unlawful activity to anyone. There was no report of unlawful activity. There was a statement that there was a discrepancy [in the computer-generated inventory aging reports]." The trial court agreed with respondent's assessment, observing, "[t]here was not any testimony with regard to unlawful activity, only that there was a problem."