Capital Group Guilty: $893K Verdict in Whistleblower Case

Table of Contents
Case Background
Christian Tetrault, the Plaintiff, filed this high-stakes employment lawsuit on June 28, 2023, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He had formerly held a senior position, specifically a Director and Principal, within the Capital Group organization. Although Mr. Tetrault was based internationally, his suit centered on critical decisions, including his non-promotion and eventual termination, which he asserted had originated from his supervisors and decision-makers in California. The case, presided over by the Honorable Wesley L. Hsu, ultimately proceeded to trial, which began on September 22, 2025, culminating in a decisive jury verdict just over a week later. The Defendants in the action were Capital Group Companies Global and The Capital Group Companies, Inc., major entities within the global financial services sector.
Cause
Mr. Tetrault brought five distinct claims against his former employer. These actions alleged that the Defendants wrongfully targeted him for engaging in legally protected activities, known as whistleblowing, within the workplace. The jury was tasked with determining liability on all five counts:
Retaliation and Whistleblowing Claims
The core of the case involved allegations of Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5, the state's primary whistleblower protection law. This statute guards employees against adverse employment action when they report unlawful activity. Closely related was the claim for Whistleblower Retaliation in Violation of California Labor Code § 98.6, which specifically prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who file a complaint or institute a proceeding related to wages, working conditions, or other labor laws.
Wrongful Termination Claims
Mr. Tetrault further claimed Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy. This cause of action asserted that the company had terminated his employment for reasons that went against the fundamental public policy of the state, particularly the policies protectin
Continue Reading This Article
Subscribe to access this article and our entire library of legal content.