Common Causes of Wrongful Termination in California
- Last Updated:
At-Will Employment in California, And Why It Does Not End the Inquiry
California Labor Code § 2922 establishes that employment with no specified term may be ended by either party at any time with notice. But “at-will” does not mean “fire for any reason whatsoever.” California law prohibits termination based on a protected characteristic (Gov. Code § 12940), retaliation for whistleblowing (Lab. Code § 1102.5), retaliation for filing a wage claim (Lab. Code § 98.6), retaliation for reporting workplace safety hazards (Lab. Code § 6310), and any firing that violates a fundamental public policy under the Tameny doctrine. If the reason for your termination falls into one of these categories, California law gives you a claim regardless of your at-will status.
What “At-Will” Actually Means, And What It Doesn’t
At-will means an employer may fire you for any lawful reason, or for no reason at all. It does not permit firing for an unlawful reason. The California Supreme Court confirmed this in Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1094: “while an at-will employee may be terminated for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational reason, there can be no right to terminate for an unlawful reason or a purpose that contravenes fundamental public policy.” The sections below identify the most common causes of wrongful termination that California law recognizes and what each one requires.
Discrimination, One of the Most Common Causes of Wrongful Termination in California
The Fair Employment and Housing Act, codified at California Government Code § 12940, is the state’s primary anti-discrimination law. It prohibits employers from terminating, or taking any other adverse employment action against, an employee based on a protected characteristic. FEHA applies to employers with five or more employees and is enforced by the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), formerly known as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
Protected Characteristics Under FEHA
- Race, color, national origin, and ancestry
- Physical or mental disability; medical condition; genetic information
- Sex (including pregnancy), gender, gender identity, and gender expression
- Marital status and sexual orientation
- Age (40 or older)
- Military or veteran status
- Religious creed
A termination motivated by any of these characteristics is unlawful under FEHA even if the employer frames it as a performance issue or a business restructuring. Evidence of discriminatory intent can include comments made by supervisors, a pattern of adverse treatment directed at members of the protected group, or suspicious timing relative to when the employer learned of the protected characteristic.
Retaliation for Opposing Discrimination or Participating in a Complaint
Government Code § 12940(h) creates a separate, standalone unlawful employment practice: firing an employee for opposing any practice prohibited by FEHA, or for filing a complaint, testifying, or assisting in any FEHA proceeding. The practical consequence is significant. An employee who reports discrimination internally and is then let go has a retaliation claim under § 12940(h) even if the original discrimination claim is factually difficult. The protected act, the complaint, is what triggers the protection, not whether the underlying complaint was ultimately successful.
Illustrative example: A warehouse supervisor complains to HR that her manager has been assigning her less desirable shifts after she disclosed her pregnancy. Two weeks later she is told her position has been eliminated. Under FEHA, the employer must demonstrate the elimination was genuine and unrelated to her complaint. The close timing between the internal complaint and the termination is the first red flag a court or the CRD will examine. If you find yourself in a similar situation, the question of when you can sue for wrongful termination depends in part on which statute applies and when you filed with the CRD.
Whistleblower Retaliation Under Labor Code § 1102.5
California Labor Code § 1102.5 is the state’s broadest whistleblower protection. It covers three distinct situations, and the civil penalty is up to $10,000 per employee per violation, awarded directly to the retaliated-against employee (§ 1102.5(f)(1)).
What Counts as Protected Whistleblower Activity
- Disclosure (§ 1102.5(b)): Reporting information to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority to investigate, or testifying before any public body, when the employee reasonably believes the information reveals a violation of a state or federal statute or regulation. Critically, protection applies even if the employer only believes the employee may disclose, no actual report needs to have occurred yet.
- Refusal to participate (§ 1102.5(c)): Refusing to take part in any activity that would violate a state or federal law or regulation.
- Prior whistleblowing (§ 1102.5(d)): Having exercised whistleblower rights at a previous employer. A new employer who learns of prior protected activity and terminates the employee because of it violates this subsection.
A frequent employer defense in whistleblower cases is that the termination was for performance reasons that existed before the report. California courts examine whether the stated reason is a pretext by looking at the timing of performance write-ups relative to the date of the disclosure, whether similarly situated non-reporting employees were treated differently, and whether discipline accelerated after the protected act. For a deeper look at how whistleblower retaliation fits into the broader wrongful termination framework, the firm’s guide covers the key elements a claim requires.
Retaliation for Exercising Workplace Rights: Wages, Safety, and Leave
Three of the most common causes of wrongful termination involve retaliation after an employee exercises a specific statutory right. These are separate protections with separate filing paths.
Right exercised | Statute | What retaliation looks like
|
|---|---|---|
Filing a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner | Labor Code § 98.6 | Termination or demotion shortly after the claim is filed or the employer is notified |
Reporting unsafe working conditions | Labor Code § 6310 | Firing after a safety complaint to Cal/OSHA or an internal supervisor |
Taking protected family or medical leave | California Family Rights Act (CFRA) | Termination during leave or denial of reinstatement upon return |
Timing is the first indicator in all three situations. An employee fired within days or weeks of exercising one of these rights has a meaningful argument that the termination was retaliatory. Do not conflate these claims: the agency that handles a CFRA complaint (the CRD) is different from the agency that handles a wage-claim retaliation matter (the Labor Commissioner), and the procedural steps differ accordingly.
Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy, The Tameny Doctrine
In Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, the California Supreme Court held that an employer’s authority to discharge an at-will employee is limited by statute and by considerations of fundamental public policy. An employee fired for refusing to engage in unlawful conduct can bring a tort claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083 later clarified that the public policy at stake must be “fundamental” and grounded in a constitutional provision, statute, or regulation, not merely employer bad behavior or an unfair business practice.
This doctrine matters because it elevates what might otherwise be a statutory violation into a tort claim, potentially expanding the categories of damages available beyond those provided by the underlying statute alone.
Examples of Terminations That Violate Public Policy
- Fired for serving on a jury: Labor Code § 230(a) expressly prohibits this.
- Fired for holding or seeking public office: Labor Code § 1101 protects employees’ political activity and civic participation.
- Fired for refusing to break the law: the original Tameny fact pattern, where the employee was pressured to participate in an illegal price-fixing scheme and terminated for refusing.
Misclassified as an Independent Contractor? You May Still Have a Wrongful Termination Claim
California Labor Code § 2775 establishes the ABC test, which presumes a worker is an employee unless the hiring entity proves otherwise. Employers sometimes use contractor labels as a shield against FEHA and wrongful termination claims, arguing that no employment relationship existed. California law rejects that shield. A worker who was genuinely misclassified as an independent contractor and then “terminated” retains the same wrongful termination and FEHA protections as any formal employee. The label on the contract does not control; the actual working relationship does.
How to Tell Whether Your Termination Was Wrongful, Red Flags and Evidence to Preserve
The following checklist identifies the most common indicators that a termination may have been unlawful, along with the evidence most useful to preserve. Act quickly: evidence can disappear, and many claims have filing deadlines that begin running on the date of termination.
Red Flags and Evidence Checklist
- Suspicious timing: You were fired within days or weeks of reporting misconduct, filing a wage claim, disclosing a pregnancy or disability, taking CFRA leave, or serving on a jury. Document the exact dates of both the protected act and the termination notice.
- Shifting explanations: The stated reason for termination changed between the termination meeting and any written documentation you later received. Save all written communications, including texts and emails, in a personal account not controlled by the employer.
- Pretextual performance issues: A performance improvement plan or write-up appeared for the first time shortly after you engaged in protected activity. Collect any prior performance reviews showing satisfactory or above-average ratings.
- Disparate treatment: Employees outside your protected class, or employees who did not engage in protected activity, were treated more favorably in comparable situations. Identify names and, if possible, job titles of those individuals.
- Comments about protected characteristics: A supervisor or decision-maker made remarks about your age, disability, pregnancy, national origin, religion, or other protected status. Write down the exact words, the date, who was present, and the context as soon as possible.
- Replacement by a younger or non-protected employee: After your termination, your role was filled by someone outside your protected class. Note any communications or job postings you are aware of.
- Missing or altered records: Documents you previously received (commendations, approvals, communications) are no longer accessible through your work systems. Save copies to a personal device before your access is revoked.
- Contractor status imposed without the ABC test being met: You were treated as an employee in practice (set hours, company equipment, exclusive work for one company) but classified as a contractor and then “terminated.” Preserve any written contracts, invoices, and communications about how your work was directed.
What This Means If You Were Just Fired
If any of the red flags above match your situation, the at-will rule does not automatically bar a claim. The statutes and cases described in this article create real legal rights that exist independently of whatever your offer letter says. Your most urgent task is to preserve evidence before your email and system access are cut off, and to record dates, statements, and names while they are fresh. Filing deadlines for different claims vary by statute and agency, so the clock may already be running. Understanding California’s wrongful termination deadlines and what evidence matters most can affect whether your claim survives. The value of a wrongful termination claim depends on the specific facts, the applicable statute, and the remedies it provides; for a realistic sense of what a case may be worth, this guide to wrongful termination case value explains the factors attorneys evaluate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does it matter that I signed an at-will acknowledgment when I was hired?
No. Signing an at-will acknowledgment confirms that your employment had no fixed term. It does not authorize your employer to fire you for a reason prohibited by statute, such as discrimination or retaliation. The exceptions described in this article apply regardless of what an offer letter or handbook says.
What if my employer says the position was eliminated?
A claimed “position elimination” is a common employer defense in wrongful termination cases. California courts examine whether the elimination was genuine or a pretext, including whether the role was actually filled afterward, whether similarly situated employees outside the protected group were retained, and whether the timing of the “elimination” coincided with protected activity.
I was classified as an independent contractor. Can I still have a wrongful termination claim?
Potentially yes. Under the ABC test in Labor Code § 2775, the default presumption is that you are an employee. If the hiring entity cannot satisfy all three prongs of that test, your contractor classification does not hold, and you retain employee protections including wrongful termination and FEHA rights.
Do I need to have reported externally to a government agency to have a whistleblower claim?
No. Under Labor Code § 1102.5(b), protected disclosure includes reporting to a person within the company who has authority to investigate the violation. External reporting to a government agency is one protected avenue, but internal reporting to a supervisor or compliance officer is also covered.
Where do I start if I think I was wrongfully terminated?
Begin by identifying which category your termination falls into, since different claims go to different agencies and have different deadlines. Preserve all written communications, performance records, and notes about what was said and when. Consulting with a California employment attorney early protects your ability to pursue a claim before any filing window closes. The California wrongful termination attorneys at Setareh Law Group can help you evaluate which claims apply to your specific facts.
If you were recently fired and believe the termination was unlawful, contact Setareh Law Group to speak with a California employment attorney. The firm represents workers throughout California and handles wrongful termination cases on a contingency basis. Call or submit a contact form to schedule a consultation.
Contact us today:
📞 Phone: 310-888-7771
✉️ Email: help@setarehlaw.com
🌐 Address: 420 N Camden Dr, Beverly Hills CA, 90210
Disclaimer: This article is general legal information about California employment law and is provided for educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its specific facts, and legal outcomes cannot be guaranteed. If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated, you should consult a licensed California employment attorney about your particular situation.
Sources and Additional Resources
Authoritative sources cited
- § 2922
- Gov. Code § 12940
- Lab. Code § 1102.5
- Lab. Code § 98.6
- Lab. Code § 6310
- § 12940
- California Civil Rights Department (CRD)
- § 1102.5
- § 98.6
- § 6310
- § 230(a)
- § 1101
- § 2775
- Labor Code § 2775
Related Setareh Law Group resources
- Question of When you Can Sue for Wrongful Termination
- Whistleblower Retaliation Fits Into the Broader Wrongful Termination Framework
- California’s Wrongful Termination Deadlines and What Evidence Matters Most
- This Guide to Wrongful Termination Case Value
- California Wrongful Termination Attorneys at Setareh Law Group
Practice Areas:
Table of Contents
- verified by Trustindex
