Unfair Firing Lawyers in California

1. Discrimination and Retaliation Under FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940)

Government Code § 12940, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), prohibits employers from terminating workers based on protected characteristics, including:

• Race, color, and national origin
• Religion
• Sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation
• Disability (physical or mental)
• Age (40 and over)
• Pregnancy
• Marital status
• Genetic information
• Military or veteran status

FEHA also has a separate anti-retaliation prong. Firing an employee for opposing discrimination, filing a complaint, or participating in an investigation is independently unlawful under § 12940, even if the underlying discrimination claim is disputed.

Illustrative example: A warehouse worker reports to HR that his supervisor is making racially offensive comments. Two weeks later, he is terminated for an alleged policy violation that his non-reporting coworkers commit routinely without discipline. The proximity in time between the protected complaint and the termination, combined with unequal enforcement, is exactly the pattern FEHA is designed to address.

2. General Whistleblower Retaliation (Labor Code § 1102.5)

Labor Code § 1102.5 is California’s broadest whistleblower protection. It prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who discloses or reports unlawful activity in the workplace, or who refuses to participate in conduct the employee reasonably believes is illegal. Critically, the report does not need to go to a government agency. Telling a supervisor, a manager, or an internal compliance line is enough. Our related article on top-rated unfair firing lawyers in California explains how this theory often overlaps with other claims.

3. Wage Complaint Retaliation (Labor Code § 98.6)

Labor Code § 98.6 specifically protects employees who complain about unpaid wages or threaten to file a claim with the California Labor Commissioner. This pattern is especially common in industries with widespread wage-and-hour violations: an employee asks why their overtime was not paid, HR escalates it, and the employee is terminated within days for a suddenly discovered performance issue.

4. Workplace Safety Retaliation (Labor Code § 6310)

Labor Code § 6310 prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who reports occupational health or safety violations. If you flagged a hazardous condition, refused an unsafe assignment, or reported your employer to Cal/OSHA, and were fired shortly after, § 6310 is in play.

5. The Public-Policy Exception: The “Tameny Claim”

Even without a specific statute, a termination is wrongful under California common law if it violates a fundamental public policy. Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083 confirmed; commonly cited at page 1095 for the public-policy holding. The exact article quote wording could not be independently confirmed at page 1094; sources quote ‘courts…may not declare public policy without a basis in either constitutional or statutory provisions’ at 1095.

To succeed on a Tameny claim, a plaintiff must show all four elements:

• The policy is set forth in a law, constitutional provision, government regulation, or mandatory ethical rule
• The policy benefits the public, not just the individual employee
• The policy is fundamental and substantial
• The policy was well-established at the time of the termination

The four situations that most commonly give rise to a Tameny claim are: the employee refused to engage in illegal conduct; the employee performed a legal duty (such as jury service); the employee exercised a legal right or privilege; or the employee reported a violation of law.

6. Implied-Contract Exception

California recognizes that consistent employer practices or written policies can create an enforceable promise of termination only for good cause, overriding the at-will default in Labor Code § 2922. A handbook that describes a multi-step corrective-action process, an oral assurance from a manager that employees are not fired without cause, or a long pattern of never terminating without documented performance issues can all contribute to an implied contract. If that contract existed and was breached, the termination is actionable regardless of at-will status.

7. Mass-Layoff Notice Violation: The California WARN Act (Labor Code § 1400)

Labor Code § 1400, the California WARN Act, requires employers to provide at least 60 days’ written notice to affected employees, the state’s workforce agency, and local government before a mass layoff involving 50 or more employees within a 30-day period, or before a plant closing. Employers who skip this notice are liable for back pay and the value of lost benefits for each affected employee for the period of the violation. If you were laid off alongside dozens of coworkers with little or no advance notice, see our article on California mass firing laws in 2026 for the current rules.