Lab. Code 1102.6 prescribes the burdens of proof on a claim for retaliation against a whistleblower in violation of Lab. Code 1102.5.  First, the employee-whistleblower bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that retaliation against him for whistleblowing was a contributing factor in the employer’s taking adverse employment action against him.  Then, the employer bears the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action “for legitimate, independent reasons.”  Those burdens govern the retaliation claim, not the McDonnell Douglas test used for discrimination in employment cases.  The difference between the two arises largely in mixed motive cases.  McDonnell Douglas tries to find a single true reason for the employer’s action whereas the 1102.6 standard creates liability when retaliation is only one of several reasons for the employer’s action.  Notably, the Sarbanes-Oxley retaliation section is governed by standards similar to 1102.6, not McDonnell Douglas.