Whether Section 1102.5(b) requires a whistleblower to identify a specific statute, rule, or regulation

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The case involves issues regarding two whistleblower statutes, one federal and a California whistleblower statute. The California whistleblower retaliation statute is found under California Labor Code § 1102.5(b) (“Section 1102.5(b)”). The federal statute is the retaliation provision of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). The appeal is based upon a February 28, 2019 federal jury verdict in the amount of $1,505,561 in favor of Petitioner for both his Section 1102.5(b) claim and his FCA claim. The issue for Section 1102.5(b) is whether the plaintiff must specify a specific statute, rule, or regulation to which the whistleblower’s disclosure is related. The language of the statute states that “...if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation...” The issue for the FCA is whether the district court used an outdated version of the FCA, in granting defendant’s Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. Two questions are presented. 1. Does Section 1102.5(b) require that a whistleblower plaintiff identify a specific statute, rule, or regulation that the whistleblower had a reasonable belief was being violated? 2. Was the 2009 amendment of the FCA which expanded the scope of protection to include “efforts to stop 1 or more violations[.] 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h)(1) the correct version of the FCA to use at the district court jury trial in this matter?