California Race Discrimination Attorney
- Last Updated:
Your Rights Under California’s Race Discrimination Law: What to Know First
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Government Code sections 12900 through 12996, prohibits race discrimination at any employer with five or more employees, a lower threshold than the 15-employee minimum under federal Title VII. Since 2019, California law also covers discrimination based on hair texture and protective hairstyles like braids, locs, and twists. Workers have three years from the last harmful act to file with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), and a successful claim can yield back pay, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.
What Race Discrimination Covers Under California Law
Under Government Code section 12940(a), an employer may not refuse to hire, discharge, or discriminate in compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of a person’s race or color. Discrimination based on national origin or ancestry can also support a race discrimination claim even though those are separately listed protected classes under FEHA. If an employer’s hostility is rooted in a worker’s ethnicity or perceived ethnic identity, that animus falls within the statute’s reach.
How California Defines “Race” More Broadly Than You Might Expect
California’s CROWN Act (SB 188, signed July 3, 2019) amended Government Code section 12926 to include hair texture and protective hairstyles within the statutory definition of race. Section 12926(x) expressly lists braids, locs, and twists as protected hairstyles. California was the first state in the country to enact this protection.
In practice, this means a workplace grooming policy that bans natural hair textures or a dress code that targets protective hairstyles common among Black employees can constitute race discrimination on its face. An employer that tells an employee to “straighten your hair or face discipline” is not raising a legitimate grooming standard; it is imposing a racially discriminatory condition of employment.
Who Is Covered Under California’s Race Discrimination Law
The five-or-more-employee threshold under section 12940(a) governs discrimination claims, including race. Because the federal Title VII minimum is 15 employees, a California worker at a six-person company has a state law claim with no parallel federal remedy. That coverage gap is significant: many small businesses, family-owned operations, and startups fall between five and 14 employees.
One important distinction: FEHA’s anti-harassment provisions carry no minimum employer-size threshold. A worker at a two-person company who is subjected to racially hostile conduct can still pursue a harassment claim under FEHA, even if the employer is too small to face a discrimination claim. If you are uncertain which theory applies to your situation, that question is best addressed in a consultation with a California employment discrimination attorney.
Two Legal Theories for a Race Discrimination Claim in California
FEHA race discrimination claims proceed under two recognized theories. California courts look to federal precedent when applying FEHA, as the California Supreme Court confirmed in Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 354. Understanding which theory fits your facts shapes what evidence matters most.
- Disparate treatment (CACI No. 2500): The employer intentionally treated you less favorably because of your race. Proof often involves comparator employees, timing, inconsistent application of policies, or direct statements revealing racial animus.
- Disparate impact (CACI No. 2502): A facially neutral employment policy produces an adverse effect on members of a racial group. The policy may look race-neutral on paper, but its application falls disproportionately on employees of a particular race.
For a deeper look at how these theories play out at work, see our guide on race discrimination in employment in California.
Stronger vs. Weaker Race Discrimination Claims Under California’s FEHA
Scenario | Claim Strength and Why
|
|---|---|
You were fired one week after switching to wearing locs at work. Non-Black colleagues with equivalent performance reviews were not disciplined. | Stronger. Hair texture and protective hairstyles are expressly covered under Gov. Code section 12926(x). The close temporal link between the hairstyle change and termination, combined with comparator evidence, supports a disparate treatment theory under CACI No. 2500. |
Your employer has a written “no braids” grooming policy for all employees, but enforcement records show it is applied only to Black employees. | Stronger. A facially neutral policy can constitute disparate treatment when selective enforcement is documented. Also viable as a disparate impact theory under CACI No. 2502 if statistical evidence shows disproportionate effect on a racial group. |
You were passed over for promotion. The person selected had comparable qualifications, and your manager made a racially derogatory remark about you to a coworker two months earlier. | Stronger. Stray remarks alone may not be sufficient, but a documented comment by the decision-maker, combined with a qualified comparator receiving the role, builds a circumstantial disparate treatment case. |
You believe you were treated unfairly because of your race, but all similarly situated employees of other races were treated the same way and the employer applied its policy uniformly. | Weaker. Without comparator evidence or a policy producing disproportionate racial impact, neither theory has a strong foundation. Uniform application of a neutral policy, consistently enforced, undercuts both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. |
Your employer eliminated your position in a documented, company-wide reduction in force that affected employees across multiple races. | Weaker without more. A frequent employer defense is that the position was eliminated for legitimate business reasons. The strength of this defense depends on whether the selection criteria for the reduction were applied consistently and whether you can show the elimination disproportionately targeted employees of your race. |
What You Can Recover in a California Race Discrimination Case
A prevailing plaintiff in a FEHA race discrimination case may recover the following remedies under Government Code section 12965:
- Back pay: Wages and benefits lost from the date of the discriminatory act through the date of judgment.
- Front pay: Compensation for future earnings losses when reinstatement is not a practical remedy.
- Reinstatement: An order restoring you to your former position or an equivalent role.
- Emotional distress damages: Compensatory damages for the psychological harm caused by the discrimination.
- Punitive damages: Available when the employer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. These are intended to punish and deter, not merely compensate.
- Attorney’s fees and costs: A prevailing plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, which makes FEHA litigation financially accessible even when a worker cannot afford hourly rates.
To understand how these categories translate into real outcomes, our related article on the average race discrimination settlement in California walks through the factors that affect case value.
How to File a Race Discrimination Claim in California: Deadlines and Steps
The Three-Year Window to Reach CRD
Before filing a lawsuit in California Superior Court, most workers must first file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD). The deadline is three years from the date of the last harmful act. In a continuing pattern of discrimination, for example a series of racially motivated denials of promotion over several years, the clock typically runs from the most recent act, not the first. The CRD’s online portal (CCRS) holds an incomplete intake form available for 30 days while the complainant completes required information.
Missing the three-year deadline generally bars the claim entirely. If you are unsure when your clock started, do not wait to get clarity.
Skipping the Investigation: The Immediate Right-to-Sue Option
You are not required to go through a CRD investigation. Under FEHA, employees may request an immediate Right-to-Sue notice from CRD and file their civil lawsuit directly in California Superior Court. This option is particularly relevant when speed matters or when the facts are well-documented and investigation is unlikely to add strategic value. Whether to use it is a judgment call best made with counsel.
The One-Year Lawsuit Window After the Right-to-Sue Notice
Once CRD issues the Right-to-Sue notice, you have one year from the date of issuance to file your complaint in Superior Court. This deadline is jurisdictional under Government Code section 12965. Filing without a valid Right-to-Sue notice results in dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, regardless of the merits of your claim. There is no grace period, and courts treat this requirement strictly. For a full walkthrough of what to document and how to protect your claim from the start, see our resource on race discrimination at work.
If you are also considering whether age played a role in your treatment alongside race, our guide on age discrimination in hiring explains how overlapping claims work under California law.
What This Means If You Believe You Were Discriminated Against
The most urgent thing to understand is that your ability to act has a hard expiration date: three years from the last harmful act to reach CRD, then one year from the Right-to-Sue notice to file in court. Both windows close whether or not you feel ready. Start documenting now: save emails, performance reviews, written policies, and any communication that reflects how you were treated compared to colleagues of other races.
Note the dates, the names of witnesses, and any manager who made a decision affecting you. If you are still employed, be aware that retaliation for asserting your rights is itself a separate violation under FEHA, so knowing your rights can affect how you respond to ongoing conduct.
The gap between California’s five-employee threshold and the federal 15-employee threshold means many workers assume they have no case when they actually do under state law. Do not draw that conclusion without speaking to an attorney.
Frequently Asked Questions About Race Discrimination in California
Does California law protect me if my employer has only eight employees?
Yes. FEHA’s race discrimination protections apply to employers with five or more employees under Government Code section 12940(a), so an eight-person employer is covered by state law even though it falls below the 15-employee federal minimum.
Can I be fired for wearing braids or locs to work?
Not legally. The CROWN Act amended Government Code section 12926 to include hair texture and protective hairstyles, specifically braids, locs, and twists, within the definition of race. Disciplining or terminating an employee for wearing those styles is race discrimination under California law.
Do I have to wait for CRD to finish its investigation before I can sue?
No. You may request an immediate Right-to-Sue notice from CRD and proceed directly to California Superior Court without going through the investigation process.
What if I was not fired but just treated differently?
FEHA prohibits discrimination in any “term, condition, or privilege” of employment, not only termination. Discriminatory denial of a promotion, pay cut, demotion, exclusion from training, or imposition of harsher discipline all qualify as adverse employment actions.
Can I recover attorney’s fees if I win?
Yes. Government Code section 12965 entitles a prevailing plaintiff to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, which means many employment attorneys handle FEHA claims on contingency.
If you believe you have experienced race discrimination at work, contact Setareh Law Group for a confidential consultation. Our team represents California workers in FEHA claims and can help you evaluate your options, understand your deadlines, and decide on a path forward. We do not charge for initial consultations and handle employment cases on contingency.
Contact us today:
📞 Phone: 310-340-2409
✉️ Email: help@setarehlaw.com
🌐 Address: 420 N Camden Dr, Beverly Hills CA, 90210
Disclaimer: This information is provided for educational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Each case is unique, and outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances. Consult with a qualified California employment attorney to discuss your individual situation.
Sources and Additional Resources
Authoritative sources cited
- Government Code sections 12900 through 12996
- Government Code section 12940(a)
- Government Code section 12926
- Government Code section 12965
- California Civil Rights Department (CRD)
Related Setareh Law Group resources
Table of Contents
- verified by Trustindex
