California Court Denies Transdev Bid to Dismiss 2 Retaliation Claims

Q: Was a safety specialist fired for poor performance, or for exposing the dangers of autonomous vehicles on public streets?

It is not established that he was fired for poor performance. At this stage, the stronger factual takeaway is that a judge found enough evidence for a jury to consider whether he was fired in retaliation for reporting a safety danger involving autonomous-vehicle operations. The court denied Transdev Alternative Services’ summary judgment motion, which means the company did not win on its argument that the case could be dismissed before trial. The judge found genuine disputes over two central issues: whether the specialist’s report about a dangerous street takeover was protected whistleblower activity under California law, and whether Transdev’s stated reasons for firing him were a pretext. That does not prove the specialist was terminated for “exposing the dangers of autonomous vehicles on public streets.” It means the court found the claim plausible enough, based on the evidence, to go to trial. Under California whistleblower law, internal safety reports to supervisors can be protected, especially when an employee reasonably believes public safety is at risk. The available reporting also does not show a final judicial finding that Transdev’s performance-based explanation was false. It shows the court believed a reasonable jury could doubt that explanation. So the most accurate answer is this: the case has not been decided, but the court has ruled there is sufficient evidence to try the claim that he was fired after raising safety concerns, not simply for poor performance.

1 articles · Updated · Bloomberg Law · Jun 9

A California federal judge refused to grant Transdev Alternative Services summary judgment, allowing a driverless roadside assistance specialist’s whistleblower retaliation and wrongful-termination claims to proceed.
The court found factual disputes over whether the worker’s report of a dangerous street takeover to his supervisor qualified as protected activity under California labor law.
Judges also said a jury could question whether Transdev’s stated reasons for firing him were pretextual, blocking dismissal before trial.
The ruling keeps alive a case testing how California whistleblower protections apply when workers raise safety concerns tied to autonomous-vehicle support operations.