GET A FREE CONSULTATION
310-750-4149
Reviewed by David Gammill, California trial attorney · Last reviewed: October 24, 2026
Bottom line: California employment is at will, which means an employer can end it for no reason. It cannot end it for an illegal reason. Four bodies of law turn a firing into a wrongful termination: the public policy tort recognized in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., Labor Code section 1102.5 (retaliation for reporting or refusing to participate in suspected illegal conduct), the Fair Employment and Housing Act (discrimination and retaliation), and Labor Code section 98.6 (retaliation for exercising Labor Code rights, with a 90-day presumption). Each has its own proof framework, its own damages, and its own deadline. This guide explains all four.
If you were fired after reporting a problem at work, Gammill Law Accident & Injury Lawyers handles wrongful termination cases in Los Angeles County. Call 310-750-4149 for a free, confidential consultation.
Short answer: Under Labor Code section 2922, an employment with no specified term may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other. The employer does not need cause, and the employee does not need a reason to quit. The statute defines employment for a specified term as employment for a period greater than one month.
At-will employment is a presumption, and it can be overcome by an express contract, by an implied agreement that the employer would fire only for cause, or by the statutes and public policies described below. The practical point for an employee is this: the employer’s freedom to fire without a reason does not include freedom to fire for a reason the law forbids. When a lawsuit alleges wrongful termination, the question is never whether the employer had to keep the employee. It is whether the real reason for the firing was a prohibited one.
Short answer: A tort claim, recognized by the California Supreme Court in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, for an employee fired for a reason that violates a fundamental public policy of the state. Because it sounds in tort rather than contract, the employee can recover emotional distress damages and, where the employer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, punitive damages.
In Tameny, an employee alleged he was fired for refusing to take part in his employer’s illegal price-fixing scheme. The court held that an employer’s authority over an employee does not include the right to demand that the employee commit a crime, and that an employer which fires an employee for refusing violates a duty imposed by law on all employers. The employee’s remedy is an action in tort, independent of any contract. Later decisions narrowed the doctrine to policies that are fundamental, substantial, public rather than private, and grounded in a constitutional or statutory provision or a regulation adopted under one. Courts continue to describe the claim as a narrow exception to at-will employment, and it is pleaded alongside the statutory claims below rather than in place of them.
The public policies most often invoked are the ones the Labor Code itself states: the right to report suspected illegal conduct, the right to refuse to break the law, the right to be paid wages owed, and the right to a workplace free of discrimination. A firing that violates one of those policies usually supports both the tort claim and a statutory claim, and the firm pleads both.
Short answer: Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits an employer, or anyone acting for the employer, from retaliating against an employee for disclosing information the employee has reasonable cause to believe shows a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. It also prohibits retaliation for refusing to participate in an activity that would violate the law.
The statute is written broadly, and each of its features matters in practice:
Section 1102.5 does not apply to rules or policies that implement, or to employer action against employees who violate, the confidentiality of the lawyer-client privilege, the physician-patient privilege, or trade secret information. Those exceptions are narrow, and they are the first thing a defense lawyer looks for.
Short answer: Under Labor Code section 1102.6, the employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action. The burden then shifts to the employer to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in the protected activity.
That two-step framework is unusual, and it favors employees in two ways. First, the employee’s threshold is low: a contributing factor is any factor that played a role, not the sole or even the main reason. Second, the employer’s rebuttal burden is high: clear and convincing evidence is the standard reserved for findings such as punitive damages liability, and it is far more demanding than the preponderance standard that governs most civil claims. An employer that cannot document its reason before the protected activity, or whose reason shifts over time, has trouble meeting it.
In practice, section 1102.5 cases are proven with sequence and documents. When was the report made, who received it, and what happened to the employee in the days and weeks after? Were other employees who did the same thing treated the same way? Did the stated reason exist before the report, or appear afterward? A jury can also be instructed that evidence a party willfully suppressed would have been unfavorable to that party, which matters when email accounts and messages go missing.
Short answer: Actual damages, including lost wages and benefits and emotional distress; a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per employee for each violation, awarded to the employee who was retaliated against; and reasonable attorney fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action. Punitive damages are available where the employer’s conduct meets the standard in Civil Code section 3294.
The civil penalty is written into the statute: in addition to other remedies, an employer is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 per employee for each violation, to be awarded to the employee. The fee provision is also in the statute: the court is authorized to award reasonable attorney fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action. Fee shifting changes the economics of these cases, because an employer that loses pays the employee’s lawyer in addition to the employee. Punitive damages are governed by the general rule in our guide to Civil Code section 3294: the employee must prove malice, oppression, or fraud by clear and convincing evidence, and public entities do not pay them.
Short answer: Government Code section 12940 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge a person from employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or veteran or military status. Subdivision (h) separately prohibits discharging or otherwise discriminating against a person because the person opposed practices forbidden by the Act or filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in a proceeding under it.
FEHA claims are proven under a different framework from section 1102.5. The employee shows membership in a protected class or protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a connection between the two. The employer then articulates a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. The employee prevails by showing that the stated reason is a pretext, or that discrimination or retaliation was a substantial motivating reason for the decision. FEHA provides for compensatory damages, including emotional distress, punitive damages against private employers, and attorney fees to a prevailing employee.
FEHA also has a procedural requirement the other claims do not: before suing, the employee must file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department and obtain a right-to-sue notice. The deadlines for that filing are in the deadline section below. A FEHA lawsuit filed without the administrative complaint will be dismissed.
Short answer: Labor Code section 98.6 prohibits a person from discharging, discriminating against, retaliating against, or taking any adverse action against an employee or applicant for engaging in conduct the Labor Code protects, including filing a bona fide complaint or claim with the Labor Commissioner, making a written or oral complaint that wages are owed, initiating a Private Attorneys General Act action, or exercising any right the Labor Code affords. If the employer takes a prohibited action within 90 days of the protected activity, there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of the employee’s claim.
The presumption was added by Senate Bill 497, effective January 1, 2024, and it changes how timing works. In most retaliation cases, a short gap between protected activity and termination is evidence a jury weighs. Under section 98.6, a gap of 90 days or less is a presumption the employer must rebut. The statute does not spell out what evidence rebuts it, and the courts are still working that out, but the structure is clear: within 90 days, the employer explains itself first.
The remedies under section 98.6 are specific. An employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or otherwise retaliated against for protected conduct is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the employer’s acts. In addition to other remedies, an employer who violates the section is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 per employee for each violation, awarded to the employee who suffered the violation. Section 98.6 claims can be pursued through the Labor Commissioner or in court.
Short answer: They depend on which claim is pleaded, and the shortest one governs the claim it applies to. The table below is general information; the dates in a specific case can be affected by tolling, by the Government Claims Act, and by when the employee discovered the facts. Talk to a lawyer about your own dates.
Deadlines are the most common way a strong wrongful termination claim is lost. The FEHA administrative filing in particular trips up employees who assume they have three years to do everything; the Civil Rights Department complaint must be on file within three years, and the lawsuit must follow within one year of the notice. A lawyer can file the administrative complaint and request an immediate right-to-sue notice, which starts the one-year clock on a date the lawyer controls.
Short answer: Lost wages and benefits from the termination through trial and, where the firing damaged the employee’s career, into the future; emotional distress damages on the tort, FEHA, and section 1102.5 theories; punitive damages against a private employer that acted with malice, oppression, or fraud; the civil penalties described above; and attorney fees under the statutes that provide them.
Economic damages are measured by what the employee would have earned but for the firing, less what the employee earned or reasonably could have earned afterward. The employee has a duty to look for comparable work, and the employer bears the burden of proving a failure to mitigate. Emotional distress damages are decided by the jury on the evidence of how the firing affected the employee, and they do not require a doctor’s testimony, though treatment records help. Punitive damages are decided in a separate phase of trial, after the jury has found liability and the clear-and-convincing finding that opens the door.
Short answer: A resignation that the law treats as a firing. An employee who quits can bring a wrongful termination claim if the employer knowingly created or permitted working conditions so intolerable or aggravated at the time of resignation that a reasonable employer would realize a reasonable person in the employee’s position would be compelled to resign.
Constructive discharge is harder to prove than an outright termination, because the employee must show both the intolerable conditions and the employer’s knowledge of them. A single unpleasant incident, a poor performance review, or a demotion will usually not meet the standard; a sustained campaign after a protected complaint may. An employee who is considering resigning because of retaliation should, where possible, talk to a lawyer before resigning and put the complaint in writing first.
Yes. The statute protects disclosures to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee with the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation, as well as disclosures to government and law enforcement agencies.
No. Section 1102.5 requires reasonable cause to believe the information disclosed a violation. The claim is about the retaliation, not about whether the underlying violation is proven.
Any factor that played a role in the decision. It does not have to be the only reason or the main reason. Once the employee shows protected activity was a contributing factor, section 1102.6 shifts the burden to the employer to prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have acted the same way regardless.
It arises when an employer takes an action prohibited by section 98.6 within 90 days of protected activity the section covers. It is rebuttable, which means the employer can present evidence to overcome it; the statute does not specify what evidence suffices.
Yes, and most wrongful termination complaints plead several theories. The FEHA claim requires the Civil Rights Department filing first; the section 1102.5 and public policy claims do not.
Yes. Public employers are covered, and public employees have additional protections in other statutes. Claims against public entities often require a government claim before suit and are subject to immunity from punitive damages.
A written or oral complaint that wages are owed is protected activity under section 98.6, and a termination within 90 days of it triggers the rebuttable presumption. The same facts often support a section 1102.5 claim, because unpaid overtime is a violation of the Labor Code.
Usually it tries to. Most severance agreements include a general release of claims against the employer. Signing one typically ends the ability to sue, which is why an employee who suspects retaliation should have the agreement reviewed before signing it.
The firm’s Los Angeles wrongful termination page explains how the firm evaluates and tries these cases. The account of a wrongful termination case the firm tried to a jury verdict in 2024 is at the secret recording case. For how punitive damages are decided, read the guide to Civil Code section 3294; for how contingency fees work in a business dispute, read contingency fees in business litigation.
David Gammill is a former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney who has tried over 100 cases to verdict, first as a prosecutor and then as a trial lawyer for injured people. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Gammill Law Accident & Injury Lawyers is in Torrance and represents employees in wrongful termination and retaliation cases throughout Los Angeles County. Consultations are free, there is no fee unless the firm recovers, and the firm takes calls in English and Spanish. Call 310-750-4149 or request a free case evaluation.
This guide is general information about California law, not legal advice for any specific situation, and it is attorney advertising. Reading it or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Statutes change and deadlines are fact-specific; consult a licensed California attorney about your own circumstances.