California National Origin and Immigration Status Discrimination Lawyer

HOME › CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT LAW › WORKPLACE DISCRIMINATION › NATIONAL ORIGIN AND IMMIGRATION

Last updated: April 2026 — Reflects California Government Code §§ 12926, 12940, California Code of Regulations Title 2 §§ 11027.1 and 11028, California Labor Code §§ 1019, 1019.1, 1019.2, 1019.3, 1171.5, and the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450) codified at Government Code §§ 7285-7285.3 in effect as of January 1, 2026, including the expanded national origin definition effective July 1, 2018, Labor Code § 90.2 immigration enforcement notice requirements, and the controlling California authority on national origin, ancestry, language, and immigration-related workplace protections

California national origin and immigration status discrimination cases involve some of the strongest statutory protections in American employment law.

California treats national origin protection broadly — the Civil Rights Department's expanded 2018 definition encompasses physical, cultural, and linguistic characteristics associated with a national origin group, marriage or association with persons of that group, attendance at religious institutions used by that group, and name associations.

Separately, California Labor Code § 1171.5 expressly provides that all Labor Code protections apply to employees regardless of immigration status — meaning that undocumented workers in California have the same wage, safety, discrimination, and retaliation protections as documented workers.

The regulatory framework has strengthened substantially in recent years. AB 263 (2013) added Labor Code § 1019, prohibiting employer retaliation for immigration-related conduct. AB 450 (2018), the Immigrant Worker Protection Act, restricts California employers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement at the worksite without proper legal process.

The California Civil Rights Department's 2018 national origin regulations substantially broadened the definition of national origin beyond birthplace to cover the full range of proxies employers historically used to mask discrimination. Together, these protections make California one of the most protective states for immigrant workers and employees of non-U-S national origin.

This guide covers the California national origin and immigration status framework under FEHA and the Labor Code, the expanded 2018 national origin definition, immigration status protections, English-only policy limitations, damages, and procedural steps available to employees who have experienced national origin or immigration-based adverse employment action. For accent-specific discrimination, see our California accent discrimination guide. For the broader discrimination framework, see our California Workplace Discrimination guide.

What Is National Origin Discrimination Under California FEHA

Government Code § 12940(a) makes it unlawful for a California employer of five or more employees to refuse to hire, discharge, or otherwise discriminate against a person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of national origin or ancestry. The statute covers applicants, probationary employees, regular employees, and unpaid interns. FEHA's harassment provisions under § 12940(j) apply to all employers regardless of size, meaning that even small employers are liable for national origin-based harassment.

The California framework is broader than federal Title VII. California covers employers with five or more employees, compared to Title VII's fifteen-employee threshold. California provides uncapped compensatory and punitive damages, while Title VII caps them at $50,000 to $300,000 based on employer size. California provides a three-year administrative filing period, compared to 300 days for Title VII. California also expressly codifies national origin definitions and protections that extend beyond the federal framework.

Protected conduct. National origin discrimination includes adverse actions taken because of the employee's actual or perceived country of birth or geographic origin, national origin group, ethnicity, physical or cultural characteristics associated with a national origin group, linguistic characteristics associated with a national origin group, marriage or association with persons of a national origin group, tribal affiliation, membership in or association with organizations identified with a national origin group, attendance at schools, churches, temples, mosques, or religious institutions generally used by a national origin group, and names associated with a national origin group.

Covered adverse actions. National origin discrimination claims arise across all employment decisions: refusal to hire, refusal to promote, termination, demotion, disparate compensation, shift assignments, work assignments, performance evaluations, disciplinary actions, re-verification of work authorization targeted at specific employees, English-only policies without business justification, and constructive discharge.

The Expanded 2018 National Origin Definition

Effective July 1, 2018, the California Civil Rights Department adopted California Code of Regulations Title 2 § 11027.1, substantially expanding the legal definition of national origin for FEHA purposes. The regulation captures the full range of proxies that employers historically used to mask national origin bias.

Physical characteristics. National origin discrimination includes adverse action based on physical characteristics associated with a national origin group — skin color, facial features, hair texture, eye shape, and other physical markers. This overlaps with but is not identical to race discrimination; both theories can be pled together.

Cultural characteristics. Cultural characteristics include traditional dress, religious observance associated with a national origin group, food practices, holiday observance, and other cultural markers. An employer who takes adverse action against an employee for observing traditional cultural practices violates national origin protections.

Linguistic characteristics. Linguistic characteristics include language proficiency, accent, and speech patterns. Accent-based discrimination is generally treated as national origin discrimination under California law. See our California accent discrimination guide for the specific accent framework.

Marriage or association. Discrimination based on an employee's marriage to or association with persons of a national origin group is covered. A U-S born employee discriminated against because of marriage to a Mexican spouse has a national origin discrimination claim based on association.

Tribal affiliation. Native American and indigenous tribal affiliations are expressly covered. Employers cannot discriminate based on tribal membership or identification.

Religious institution attendance. Attendance at schools, churches, temples, mosques, or other religious institutions generally used by persons of a national origin group is covered. An employer who draws inferences about national origin from an employee's mosque attendance violates the statute.

Name associations. Names associated with a national origin group are covered. Name-based discrimination in hiring (disparate callback rates for resumes with foreign-sounding names) is national origin discrimination.

Organizational membership. Membership in or association with organizations identified with or seeking to promote the interests of a national origin group is covered. Membership in cultural, heritage, or advocacy organizations cannot be the basis of adverse action.

National Origin vs. Ancestry vs. Race

FEHA treats national origin, ancestry, and race as three separate protected categories that frequently overlap but have distinct legal elements.

National origin refers to the country or region of the employee's or the employee's ancestors' birth, ethnicity, and the expanded 2018 definition covering physical, cultural, linguistic, and associational characteristics.

Ancestry refers to the employee's or the employee's family's line of descent. Ancestry discrimination can overlap with national origin but is a distinct category. An employer who discriminates based on an employee's Irish ancestry, Italian ancestry, Mexican ancestry, or any other ancestral background violates FEHA's ancestry protection, regardless of whether the discrimination could also be characterized as national origin discrimination.

Race refers to biological or genetic ancestry associated with a particular racial group. See our California race discrimination guide for the broader race discrimination framework.

Strategic value of pleading multiple categories. Experienced California plaintiffs' counsel typically plead national origin, ancestry, and race together where the facts support all three theories. The overlap creates multiple avenues to liability — if the employer defeats one theory of causation, the others may succeed on the same facts. Each category has the same damages structure under FEHA, so pleading multiple categories does not increase litigation complexity while providing multiple paths to the verdict.

Immigration Status Protection Under Labor Code § 1171.5

California Labor Code § 1171.5 expressly provides that all protections, rights, and remedies available under state law to persons regardless of immigration status, except as prohibited by federal law. This provision is the statutory foundation for California's robust immigration status workplace protections.

Scope. Labor Code § 1171.5 means that undocumented workers in California have the same protections under the Labor Code as documented workers — including wage and hour protections, meal and rest break protections, overtime, minimum wage, discrimination and retaliation protections under the Labor Code, whistleblower protections, and workers' compensation. Immigration status is generally not a defense to labor law violations.

Post-termination immigration status inquiry. Under Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co. (2014) 59 Cal-4th 407, an employer that does not learn of an employee's undocumented status until after termination cannot use that status to defeat the employee's FEHA discrimination claim. The employer's lack of knowledge at the time of the discriminatory decision forecloses the "after-acquired evidence" defense.

Reinstatement limits. Federal immigration law (IRCA) prohibits an undocumented worker from being reinstated to a position. However, the employee may still recover back pay, front pay for the period between termination and the date the employer learned of the status, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. California law preserves these remedies despite the federal reinstatement limitation.

Wages owed regardless of status. Undocumented workers are entitled to recover wages already earned, including overtime, meal and rest break premiums, and waiting time penalties. Labor Code § 226.8 misclassification penalties, § 203 waiting time penalties, and § 1194 minimum wage and overtime claims are all available regardless of immigration status.

Labor Code § 1019 and the Immigrant Worker Protection Act

California Labor Code § 1019, added by AB 263 in 2013 and subsequently expanded, prohibits California employers from engaging in unfair immigration-related practices against employees who exercise rights under the Labor Code, the Government Code, or any other California employment law.

Prohibited conduct. Unfair immigration-related practices under § 1019 include requesting more or different documents than required under federal law for employment authorization verification, refusing to honor documents that reasonably appear genuine, using the federal E-Verify system at a time or in a manner not required by federal law, threatening to file or filing a false police report, and threatening to contact or contacting immigration authorities.

Protected activity. Section 1019 protections apply when employees exercise rights under California or federal labor, employment, civil, or other law. This includes filing wage claims, filing discrimination complaints, participating in whistleblower activities, filing workers' compensation claims, and engaging in concerted activity with coworkers.

Retaliation prohibition. An employer that engages in an unfair immigration-related practice within ninety days of an employee's protected activity creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation. The employer bears the burden of proving the adverse action was not retaliatory.

Private right of action. Section 1019 provides a private right of action with remedies including reinstatement, back pay, attorney's fees, and, in some cases, criminal penalties for employers who engage in threats of immigration retaliation to suppress wage claims. Civil penalties can reach $10,000 per violation.

Labor Code § 1019.1. Expanded definitions and additional protections, including specific prohibitions on threatening to report immigration status to immigration authorities for purposes of retaliation.

Labor Code § 1019.2. Prohibits threats to file false reports or complaints with any state or federal agency based on immigration status.

AB 450 and Employer Cooperation with Immigration Enforcement

The Immigrant Worker Protection Act (AB 450), codified at Government Code §§ 7285-7285.3 and Labor Code §§ 90.2 and 1019.4, restricts California employers from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement at the worksite without proper legal process.

Restrictions on ICE access. California employers generally cannot voluntarily grant federal immigration enforcement officers access to non-public areas of the workplace without a judicial warrant. Voluntary cooperation beyond what federal law requires can result in civil penalties ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 for a first offense.

I-9 notice requirements. Employers who receive a Notice of Inspection from federal immigration enforcement must provide notice to employees within 72 hours. Employees are entitled to know that an I-9 audit is underway and to understand their rights.

Re-verification limits. Employers cannot reverify an employee's employment eligibility at a time or in a manner not required by federal law. Targeted re-verification of specific employees — often used as a pretext to remove employees who complain about wages, discrimination, or workplace safety — is an unfair immigration-related practice under § 1019.

Worksite enforcement notice. Labor Code § 90.2 requires employers to post a notice informing employees of immigration enforcement actions and their rights during workplace audits or raids.

Penalties. Civil penalties for AB 450 violations range from $2,000 to $5,000 for a first offense and $5,000 to $10,000 for subsequent offenses. Private rights of action are available under specific Labor Code provisions for affected employees.

English-Only Policies Under CCR § 11028

California Code of Regulations Title 2 § 11028 establishes strict limits on employer English-only workplace policies. English-only policies are presumptively unlawful under California law and must meet specific requirements to survive legal challenge.

Presumption of unlawfulness. Under CCR § 11028, an English-only policy is presumptively unlawful as national origin discrimination. The employer bears the burden of proving the policy is justified by business necessity.

Business necessity standard. An English-only policy must be justified by business necessity — meaning it is necessary to the safe and efficient operation of the business and there is no less restrictive alternative. Generalized preferences for English, customer preference for English-speaking employees, or employer discomfort with other languages do not constitute a business necessity.

Narrow tailoring. The policy must be narrowly tailored to the business need. A blanket "English-only at all times" policy rarely satisfies the narrow tailoring requirement. Policies that apply only during customer contact, during specific safety-critical activities, or in other specific circumstances are more likely to be upheld.

Notice requirements. Employers must notify employees of the English-only policy in advance and inform them of the consequences of violating it. Surprise enforcement of an English-only policy without prior notice is an independent violation.

Lunch and break periods. English-only policies cannot apply to lunch periods, rest breaks, or other non-work periods when employees are not performing job duties.

Common fact patterns. Retail, restaurant, and service employees are disciplined for speaking Spanish, Korean, Tagalog, Mandarin, or other non-English languages with coworkers during break times. Healthcare workers disciplined for speaking to patients in the patients' native languages. Warehouse employees disciplined for conversing in their native language during physical labor. Each of these can support a claim of English-only policy violation under § 11028.

Accent Discrimination as National Origin Discrimination

Accent discrimination is typically treated as national origin discrimination under California law because accent is closely associated with national origin group. An employer who takes adverse action because of an employee's accent — refusing to hire, denying promotion, terminating, or harassing — generally violates FEHA's national origin protection.

When accent can be considered. An employer may consider accent in hiring or promotion decisions only when effective oral communication in English is a bona fide occupational qualification and the employee's accent materially interferes with job performance. The standard is narrow: most jobs do not require accent-free English, and employer discomfort or customer preference does not justify accent-based discrimination.

Common fact patterns. Employees were removed from customer-facing roles because of their accent. Employees were denied promotion to management because of their accent. Employees were mocked or harassed because of their accent. Employees disciplined for mispronunciations or grammatical errors attributable to accent. Each supports a national origin discrimination claim. See our dedicated California accent discrimination guide.

Common Forms of National Origin and Immigration Discrimination

California national origin and immigration discrimination practice involves recurring fact patterns:

Re-verification retaliation. Employees whose work authorization is re-verified shortly after complaining about wages, discrimination, or safety. Re-verification at a time not required by federal law is an unfair immigration-related practice under § 1019.

ICE threat retaliation. Employees threatened with deportation or immigration reporting after raising workplace complaints. Under § 1019.1, such threats are per se unfair immigration-related practices.

Termination following immigration status disclosure. Employees terminated or demoted shortly after employer learns of immigration status. Protected under Labor Code § 1171.5 and FEHA when status-based adverse action is pretextual.

National origin hostile work environment. Slurs, mockery, "go back to your country" comments, displays of offensive imagery, and other conduct creating a hostile environment based on national origin.

Name-based hiring discrimination. Qualified applicants with foreign-sounding names receiving fewer callbacks than identically qualified applicants with Anglo names. Supports both disparate treatment and disparate impact claims.

English-only policy enforcement. Discipline or termination for speaking non-English languages during breaks, during non-customer contact, or in other non-business-necessity contexts.

I-9 document refusal. Refusing to accept documents that reasonably appear genuine, or requesting more or different documents than required under federal law. Direct violation of Labor Code § 1019.

Post-9/11 Muslim and South Asian discrimination. Employees from Muslim, Sikh, Arab, and South Asian backgrounds face documented patterns of national origin discrimination, often intersecting with religious discrimination. See our California religious discrimination guide.

Latino/Hispanic targeting. Latino and Hispanic employees face documented patterns of national origin discrimination in hiring, promotion, discipline, and termination. Often intersecting with Spanish-language workplace practices and English-only policy issues.

Asian American discrimination. Asian American employees face documented patterns of "model minority" stereotyping, glass ceiling effects, and national origin-based harassment, including recent increases tied to anti-Asian sentiment.

Native American tribal discrimination. Native American employees face discrimination based on tribal affiliation, traditional practices, and indigenous cultural markers. Expressly covered by the 2018 expanded national origin definition.

Customer preference discrimination. Employees were removed from customer-facing roles based on customer preference for English-speaking or non-accented employees. Customer preference does not justify national origin discrimination under California law.

Association-based discrimination. Employees are treated adversely because of their marriage to or association with persons of a particular national origin. Expressly covered by the 2018 expanded definition.

Hostile Work Environment Based on National Origin

Government Code § 12940(j) prohibits harassment based on national origin that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter employment conditions. National origin harassment claims are common in California litigation and frequently produce high settlement values.

Common forms. Ethnic slurs, national origin-based mockery, "go back to your country" statements, mockery of accents or cultural practices, anti-immigrant rhetoric directed at employees, displays of offensive imagery, and exclusion from workplace social activities based on national origin.

Single severe incident. A single severe incident — particularly involving an ethnic slur directed at the employee or threats based on immigration status — can establish a hostile work environment under California case law.

Employer liability. California employers bear strict liability for national origin harassment by supervisors and negligence-based liability for coworker harassment where the employer knew or should have known. Under Government Code § 12940(k), employers have an affirmative duty to prevent discrimination and harassment, which includes maintaining effective anti-discrimination policies, training, and investigation procedures. For the full harassment framework, see our California workplace harassment guide.

How to Prove a National Origin Discrimination Claim

California national origin discrimination claims proceed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework modified by California's "substantial motivating factor" causation standard under Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal-4th 203.

Prima facie case. The employee establishes membership in a protected national origin category, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances suggesting a causal connection to national origin. Direct evidence — national origin-based statements by decision-makers, "go back to your country" comments in decision-making contexts — satisfies this step. Circumstantial evidence — comparative treatment of employees of other national origins, timing, departures from standard procedure — also suffices.

Employer's legitimate reason. The employer must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse action.

Pretext. The employee must show that the stated reason is pretextual and that national origin was a substantial motivating factor. Pretext evidence includes comparator evidence showing employees of other national origins treated differently, inconsistent application of policies, shifting explanations across proceedings, and statistical patterns of adverse action against employees of specific national origin groups. See our McDonnell Douglas guide for the full framework.

Substantial motivating factor. Under Harris, the employee must prove national origin was a substantial motivating factor — not the only reason, but a real and meaningful factor — in the adverse action. See our substantial motivating factor guide.

Disparate impact theory. Where a facially neutral employer policy produces a disproportionate adverse impact on a protected national origin group — such as English-only policies or identification requirements — a disparate impact claim can proceed without proof of discriminatory intent. See our disparate impact guide.

Disparate treatment theory. Individual disparate treatment claims focus on specific adverse action motivated by national origin. See our disparate treatment guide.

Damages Available Under FEHA and Labor Code

California national origin and immigration discrimination cases provide among the most plaintiff-favorable damages structures in American employment law:

Claim Type	Damages Available
FEHA national origin discrimination	Back pay, front pay, emotional distress (uncapped), punitive damages, mandatory attorney's fees, injunctive relief
Labor Code § 1019 immigration retaliation	Reinstatement, back pay, civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation, attorney's fees
Labor Code § 1019.1 threat of immigration reporting	Civil penalties, injunctive relief, attorney's fees
AB 450 employer cooperation violations	Civil penalties $2,000–$10,000 per violation
Wage and hour claims for undocumented workers	Unpaid wages, liquidated damages, waiting time penalties, attorney's fees
Combined FEHA + Labor Code claims	All above, pursuable in same action

The mandatory attorney's fees provision under FEHA § 12965(c) and Labor Code § 1019 alters the economics of the case.

Cases where compensatory damages alone would not justify litigation become viable because the fee-shift provisions guarantee the employer pays the plaintiff's legal costs if the plaintiff prevails.

For the complete FEHA damages framework, see our FEHA damages guide.

Statute of Limitations

California national origin and immigration discrimination claims are subject to multiple filing deadlines depending on the theory:

Claim Type	Administrative Deadline	Civil Suit Deadline
FEHA national origin discrimination	3 years to CRD	1 year after right-to-sue
Federal Title VII national origin	300 days to EEOC	90 days after right-to-sue
Labor Code § 1019 immigration retaliation	3 years (statutory)	Private right of action
FEHA national origin harassment (continuing violation)	3 years from last act	1 year after right-to-sue
AB 450 violations	Civil penalty statute of limitations varies
Wage claims (any status)	3 years (statutory); 4 years for written contracts

Continuing violation doctrine. For ongoing hostile work environment and pattern discrimination cases, the three-year FEHA period runs from the last act in a continuous course of conduct rather than from the first act.

Immigration status not a barrier. Under Labor Code § 1171.5, immigration status does not bar recovery. Undocumented workers can file claims and recover damages on the same basis as documented workers.

What to Do If You Suspect National Origin or Immigration Discrimination

Document everything contemporaneously. Create a timeline of national origin-based conduct including dates, specific words used, witnesses, and context. Ethnic slurs, "go back to your country" comments, and discriminatory treatment should be recorded at the time they occur.

Preserve comparative evidence. If employees of other national origins are being treated differently for comparable conduct, document the comparison. Comparator evidence is central to national origin discrimination cases.

Document English-only policy enforcement. If you have been disciplined or affected by an English-only policy, preserve all related documentation including the policy itself, discipline notices, and any business justification the employer has articulated.

Document any immigration-related conduct. Threats to report immigration status, targeted I-9 re-verification, demands for additional documents, and any other immigration-related adverse conduct. These trigger Labor Code § 1019 protections independent of FEHA.

Preserve all performance documentation. Positive performance reviews before a national origin-based adverse action are critical.

Save electronic copies before losing system access. If termination appears likely, download or forward important records to a personal email before you lose access.

Do not disclose immigration status unnecessarily. Your immigration status is generally not a defense to your employer's discrimination. Before discussing immigration status with counsel, understand that California law provides strong protections regardless of status.

Consult with specialized employment counsel promptly. National origin and immigration discrimination cases frequently involve multiple overlapping theories — FEHA discrimination, Labor Code § 1019 retaliation, wage and hour violations, and harassment. Specialized counsel can evaluate which theories are strongest and coordinate multiple filings.

Consider the CRD process. Employees can file FEHA complaints with the California Civil Rights Department. Labor Code § 1019 claims can be filed with the California Labor Commissioner or in civil court. Combined claims typically maximize recovery.

Do not sign a severance agreement without attorney review. Severance agreements typically waive FEHA national origin claims. Attorney review before signing can preserve claims worth many multiples of the severance amount.

Frequently Asked Questions

What qualifies as national origin discrimination under California FEHA? California's expanded 2018 definition of national origin includes physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics associated with a national origin group, marriage or association with persons of a national origin group, tribal affiliation, membership in or association with organizations identified with a national origin group, attendance at schools, churches, temples, mosques, or religious institutions generally used by a national origin group, and names associated with a national origin group. The definition is substantially broader than birthplace alone and captures the full range of proxies employers historically used to mask national origin bias.

Can undocumented workers bring wage and discrimination claims in California? Yes. Under California Labor Code § 1171.5, all Labor Code protections apply to employees regardless of immigration status. Undocumented workers can recover unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest break premiums, waiting time penalties, and other Labor Code remedies. Under Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co., immigration status learned after termination does not defeat a FEHA discrimination claim. Reinstatement is not available under federal immigration law, but all other remedies, including back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, and punitive damages, remain available.

What does Labor Code § 1019 prohibit? California Labor Code § 1019, added by AB 263, prohibits employers from engaging in unfair immigration-related practices against employees who exercise California labor or employment rights. Prohibited practices include requesting more or different documents than required for I-9 verification, refusing to honor documents that reasonably appear genuine, using E-Verify in ways not required by federal law, threatening to file or filing false police reports, and threatening to contact or contacting immigration authorities. Adverse action within ninety days of protected activity creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation.

Are English-only workplace policies legal in California? English-only policies are presumptively unlawful under California Code of Regulations Title 2 § 11028. An English-only policy is lawful only if justified by business necessity, narrowly tailored to the business need, and accompanied by proper notice to employees. Customer preference, employer discomfort with other languages, and generalized preferences for English do not constitute a business necessity. English-only policies cannot apply to lunch periods, rest breaks, or other non-work periods.

Can my employer fire me for speaking Spanish or another language at work? Generally, no, unless the employer can prove an English-only policy is justified by business necessity and narrowly tailored. Speaking non-English languages during breaks, during non-customer contact, or in other non-business-necessity contexts is protected. Discipline or termination for language use outside a legally valid English-only policy supports both a national origin discrimination claim under FEHA and potentially retaliation claims if the language use was tied to protected activity.

How long do I have to file a national origin discrimination claim in California? Three years to file a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department from the date of the last discriminatory act. After the CRD issues a right-to-sue notice, one additional year to file a civil lawsuit. Cases involving ongoing harassment or pattern discrimination may benefit from the continuing violation doctrine, which extends the effective filing window. The California deadline is substantially longer than the 300-day federal Title VII deadline. Labor Code § 1019 claims have their own three-year statute of limitations.

What damages can I recover in a California national origin discrimination case? Economic damages include back pay, front pay, and lost benefits. Non-economic damages cover emotional distress — uncapped under FEHA. Punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 are available where the employer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. Attorney's fees are mandatory to the prevailing plaintiff under Government Code § 12965(c). Labor Code § 1019 claims add civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation plus attorney's fees. Combined FEHA and Labor Code claims pursued in the same action can produce recoveries materially higher than federal Title VII cases.

DISCLOSURE 

This page is published and maintained by 1000Attorneys.com, a California State Bar Certified Lawyer Referral and Information Service, LRIS Certificate No. 0128, accredited by the American Bar Association and established in 2005. The information on this page is for general educational purposes only and is not legal advice. 1000Attorneys.com is not a law firm and does not provide legal representation. For legal advice about your specific situation, consult a qualified California attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where your claim arises.