California Employment Law: Know Your Rights as an Employee

Wrongful Termination

 

When a California employer fires an employee for an illegal reason — discrimination, retaliation, refusal to break the law, exercise of a protected right, or violation of public policy — the termination is wrongful, and the employee may file a claim.

 

California's Tameny doctrine, established by the California Supreme Court in 1980, creates broad public policy protection beyond statutory categories.

 

A wrongful termination claim often combines multiple legal theories: at-will exceptions, statutory protection under FEHA, and the public policy tort.

 

Common situations include termination after announcing a pregnancy, firing shortly after a workers' compensation claim, being forced to resign because conditions became intolerable, retaliation for refusing illegal activity, and mass layoffs without proper notice.

​

For the full framework — including damages, deadlines, evidence, and how to prove a claim — see our California wrongful termination guide.

​

Workplace Discrimination

 

Government Code § 12940, the operative provision of FEHA, prohibits adverse employment action based on race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, disability, medical condition, sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, marital status, military status, and reproductive health decisionmaking.

 

Coverage applies to employers with five or more employees, which is materially broader than the federal Title VII threshold of 15.

​

A California discrimination case typically proceeds under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework modified by the California Supreme Court's substantial motivating factor standard from Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013).

 

Claims cover both individual disparate treatment and systemic disparate impact theories, and FEHA provides uncapped damages plus mandatory attorney's fees to prevailing employees.

​

For the full framework — including each protected class, hostile work environment claims, employer defenses, and damages — see our California workplace discrimination guide.

​

Workplace Harassment

 

Harassment based on a protected characteristic that is severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions creates a hostile work environment claim under FEHA.

 

The 2024 California Court of Appeals decision in Bailey v. San Francisco District Attorney's Office lowered the severity threshold California courts apply, making single-incident severe harassment more likely to support a claim.

 

Quid pro quo harassment, where a supervisor conditions employment benefits on submission to unwelcome conduct, is also actionable.

​

California imposes strict liability on employers for harassment by supervisors and negligence-based liability for harassment by coworkers when the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take corrective action.

 

Employers also have an affirmative duty to prevent harassment, including through mandatory training and effective complaint procedures.

​

For the full framework — including the severe-or-pervasive standard, employer liability rules, the continuing violation doctrine, and damages — see our California workplace harassment guide.

​

Workplace Retaliation

 

California prohibits adverse action against employees who engage in protected activity, including filing complaints, opposing illegal practices, requesting accommodations, taking medical leave, reporting safety violations, or supporting another employee's claim.

 

SB 497 (2024) created a 90-day rebuttable presumption of retaliation when an employer takes adverse action within that window after the protected activity, shifting the burden to the employer to prove a legitimate non-retaliatory reason.

 

California retaliation protection operates through multiple statutes simultaneously. FEHA prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose discrimination or harassment.

 

The Labor Code prohibits retaliation against wage complaints, safety reports, and the exercise of a wide range of statutory rights. Specific provisions, including Labor Code § 132a, prohibit retaliation against workers who file workers' compensation claims.

​

For the full framework, see our California workplace retaliation guide.

​

Whistleblower Protections

 

Labor Code § 1102.5 protects California employees who report reasonable beliefs of illegal conduct internally to the employer or externally to a government agency.

 

The 2022 California Supreme Court decision in Lawson v. PPG Industries established the contributing-factor framework, under which the employee must prove that the protected activity was a contributing factor — not the sole or substantial reason — in the adverse action. Once the employee meets this burden, the employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action regardless.

​

California whistleblower protection is broader than federal law and covers a wide range of disclosures, including violations of state and federal statutes, regulations, and rules. Specific industries — including healthcare, government contractors, and publicly traded companies — are subject to additional whistleblower frameworks with their own remedies.

​

For the full framework, see our California whistleblower protections guide.

​

Medical Leave Violations

 

Three statutes work together to protect employee medical and family leave: the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), and California Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL).

 

California's framework provides broader leave rights than federal law, including coverage for smaller employers and a broader definition of family members.

​

California recognizes two distinct causes of action for leave violations: interference (the employer prevents an eligible employee from taking leave or returns them to a worse position) and retaliation (the employer takes adverse action because the employee took leave). Each requires different proof and supports different damages.

​

For the full framework — including eligibility, intermittent leave, the serious health condition standard, and reinstatement rights — see our California medical leave violations guide.

​

Wage and Hour Violations

 

The California Labor Code provides employees with the strongest wage protections in the United States, including minimum wage, overtime (1.5× the regular rate after 8 hours per day or 40 per week, 2× after 12 hours per day), mandatory meal and rest breaks, accurate wage statements, timely final pay, and protection against misclassification as exempt or as an independent contractor.

 

The Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) gives employees the right to enforce labor code violations on behalf of all aggrieved employees, multiplying potential damages.

​

California wage claims can be filed either with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE — also called the Labor Commissioner) for free administrative resolution, or in civil court for typically larger recoveries.

 

These claims often combine multiple violations because Labor Code problems frequently appear together — an employer that fails to pay overtime usually also has meal-break and wage-statement issues.

​

For the full framework, see our California wage and hour violations guide. For workplace injuries that intersect with employment claims, see our California workers' compensation rights overview.

​

California Executive Employment Issues

​

California protects executives, professionals, and senior contributors differently than rank-and-file workers — not because their rights are greater, but because the contracts they sign are far more dangerous if mishandled. A vice president who signs a separation agreement at 11pm on the day they walk out can sign away claims worth ten times the severance.

 

A senior product manager who signs an offer letter without reviewing the equity vesting schedule can lose six figures of unvested RSUs at termination. A sales executive who tolerates a commission plan written by the company's general counsel can lose every commission earned in the final 90 days before resignation.

​

The issue areas covered in this section include severance package negotiation, the California ban on non-compete agreements under Business and Professions Code § 16600 as amended by AB 1076, non-solicitation agreements, sales commission disputes under Labor Code § 2751, executive employment contract review, and equity, RSU, and stock option disputes after termination.

​

For the complete framework, see our California Executive Employment Issues guide.

​

Employee Rights at Major California Employers

 

California's largest employers face heightened legal scrutiny because of the volume of California employees they manage and patterns of recurring violations across their workforces.

 

We maintain dedicated employee-rights guides for the major California employers most frequently involved in workplace claims:

​

• Amazon employee rights in California →

• Walmart employee rights in California →

• Tesla employee rights in California →

• Kaiser Permanente employee rights in California →

• UPS employee rights in California →

• Target employee rights in California →