Oakland, California – The Alameda County Superior Court has denied Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s motion for summary judgment in a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit brought by Robert Tyler Coleman, a former equipment mechanic who worked for the utility for 28 years. Judge Peter Borkon issued the order on October 6, 2026, finding that triable issues of material fact exist on Coleman’s claims for retaliation under California Labor Code section 1102.5, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and punitive damages. Erlich Law Firm of Oakland represents Coleman.

The ruling means the case will move forward toward trial rather than being decided in PG&E’s favor as a matter of law.

According to the complaint, Coleman began working for PG&E in January 1996 at the company’s Hayward Service Center and was promoted to sub-foreman, or crew lead, in 2016. In that role he was responsible for maintaining equipment and rolling stock at the facility.

The lawsuit alleges that in late 2023, Coleman conducted a safety assessment of a hydraulic aerial lift and recommended that the repair be performed at a PG&E Tier 1 garage rather than at the Hayward Service Center, which he believed lacked the equipment needed to do the work safely. According to the complaint, his supervisors ordered him to perform the work in Hayward despite his concerns. Coleman put his safety concerns in writing to his crew lead and division supervisor on November 30, December 4 and December 5, 2023.

The court’s order also recognized a written complaint Coleman sent to PG&E CEO Patricia Poppe on October 13, 2023, in which he reported that he was experiencing retaliation and harassment from his superintendent and a labor relations specialist. PG&E terminated Coleman’s employment on February 14, 2024.

In its motion, PG&E argued that the discipline it had issued to Coleman earlier in 2023 made his termination inevitable regardless of any protected activity. The court rejected that argument. Judge Borkon found that PG&E’s own Positive Discipline Guidelines establish only that termination was probable after a prior disciplinary step, not inevitable, and that the guidelines require the company to consider mitigating factors such as length of service and employment record before discharging an employee.

The court held that Coleman’s October 2023 complaint to the CEO, followed by his termination four months later, is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support an inference of retaliatory intent. The court also found that PG&E failed to present clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated Coleman for legitimate, independent reasons even if he had not engaged in protected activity. PG&E offered no evidence that any similarly situated employee had been treated the same way.

The court sustained Coleman’s objection to a 1990 arbitration decision involving a different PG&E employee, which PG&E had offered to show that a Decision Making Leave requires termination upon any further violation. The court ruled the arbitration opinion was inadmissible hearsay.

On punitive damages, the court declined to dismiss the claim, citing Colucci v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. for the principle that a jury may find malice or oppression where there is evidence that an employer’s stated reason for a termination was a pretext for retaliation. The court further found triable issues as to whether PG&E’s Superintendent of Fleet Operations for the Bay Area, who oversees roughly 90 employees and a multimillion-dollar budget, and a labor relations specialist who determines when discipline investigations are complete, qualify as managing agents under Civil Code section 3294.

The allegations in the complaint have not been proven, and PG&E contests the claims. The order addresses only whether the case may proceed to trial.

“Mr. Coleman spent nearly three decades keeping PG&E’s equipment safe to operate,” said Jason Erlich, founder of Erlich Law Firm. “He raised safety concerns in writing and reported what he believed was retaliation to the company’s chief executive. Four months later he was fired. The court has now found that a jury should decide whether those events are connected, and we look forward to presenting this case at trial.”