The Whistleblower Protection Act and the California False Claims Act both protect whistleblowers from retaliating employers after they report wrongdoing. Unfortunately, not all employers abide by this law. When they learn an employee has blown the whistle on them, they sometimes terminate that employee. The employee loses his or her income and soon falls upon financial hardship. When this happens, it is important that employees understand they can file a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit against their employee to recover damages. So, what damages are available in a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit? A San Francisco whistleblower lawyer can fully evaluate your claim, but there are three types of damages most common in retaliation lawsuits.
Back Pay Damages
Back pay provides compensation for any financial losses the employee sustained as a result of the retaliatory action. These damages often include wages, promotions, stock options, vacation pay, and other benefits. The False Claims Act states that employees who are retaliated against are entitled to twice the amount of back pay they have lost.
Healthcare Fraud Lawyer Blog


Whether whistleblowers take action under the federal
Sometimes employees notice fraud against the government within their workplace. When they do, they want to do the right thing and put a stop to it, but they’re also afraid to take action. Sometimes this fear stems from the threat of retaliation, and losing their job and income. Other times, it is simply a fear of the unknown. If you have witnessed fraud against the government at your workplace, either under the federal
If you are considering blowing the whistle on your employer’s wrongful actions that are defrauding the government, employment retaliation is a real fear. In fact, it is one of the biggest reasons employees do not come forward and blow the whistle. However, this should never keep you from trying to make things right. You should know you have legal rights that protect you from employer retaliation. 


state’s Legislative Auditor undertook to study the statute, its results, and recommend or counsel against reauthorization. As the resulting report (