Erlich Law Firm Files Complaint Against PG&E For Alleged Retaliation and Wrongful Termination of Longtime Employee

Oakland, California – Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is at the center of a legal battle following allegations of retaliation and wrongful termination by a former employee. The lawsuit, filed by attorney Jason Erlich of Erlich Law Firm for Mr. Robert Coleman, a California resident and a former Sub-Foreman at PG&E, accuses the utility giant of engaging in unlawful employment practices, including retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5.

Mr. Coleman, who dedicated nearly three decades to PG&E, claims the company retaliated against him for resisting attempts to alter his work schedule, which was protected under an Arbitration Decision from 2008. Despite repeated objections to management’s efforts to change his shift times, Coleman alleges he faced unwarranted disciplinary actions, ultimately leading to his demotion in mid-2023.

The core of Coleman’s complaint further alleges that, in December 2023, he was coerced into performing unsafe work on a hydraulic aerial lift without proper training, tools, or safety equipment. Despite voicing his safety concerns, management reportedly dismissed his warnings, compelling him to proceed with the task. This incident, he claims, underscored a pattern of retaliatory conduct by PG&E, placing him in a precarious situation where he risked discipline whether he complied with or refused the unsafe work demands.

The legal document outlines that on February 14, 2024, PG&E terminated Coleman’s employment. The complaint argues this action was in direct retaliation for Coleman’s continued objections to unsafe work conditions and his insistence on adhering to the agreed-upon terms of the Arbitration Decision. The lawsuit posits that PG&E’s conduct contravenes California’s public policy, which safeguards employees against retaliation for reporting or refusing to participate in illegal activities.

In addition to seeking compensatory damages for lost wages and emotional distress, Coleman is pursuing punitive damages. The complaint further advocates for injunctive relief to prevent future PG&E retaliatory practices and calls for comprehensive training to educate employees on the repercussions of retaliation.

This legal challenge spotlights PG&E’s employment practices amid ongoing scrutiny over its operations. The company, already under public pressure for safety and management issues, now faces the potential of a prolonged legal battle as these allegations unfold in court.

As the legal proceedings advance, this case could prompt broader discussions on employees’ rights to oppose workplace hazards and corporations’ responsibilities to uphold ethical employment standards. The outcome could have significant implications for California’s labor landscape, reinforcing protections for workers who assert their legal rights against powerful corporate entities.

Superior Court of California, County of Alameda
Robert Tyler Coleman v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
25CV110929