EnglishEspañol
California flag

California

Leyes de Denunciantes de California: Protecciones y Cómo Denunciar

Leyes de Denunciantes de California: Protecciones y Cómo Denunciar

Preguntas frecuentes

¿Qué califica como denuncia bajo la ley de California?

Bajo la Sección 1102.5 del Código Laboral de California, la denuncia incluye reportar una presunta violación de cualquier ley, norma o regulación estatal o federal ante una agencia gubernamental, las fuerzas del orden o un supervisor con autoridad para investigar. También está protegido por negarse a participar en actividad ilegal y por testificar en investigaciones.

¿Me pueden despedir por ser denunciante en California?

No. La ley de California prohíbe que los empleadores tomen represalias contra los denunciantes mediante el despido, la degradación, la suspensión o cualquier otra acción laboral adversa. Bajo el SB 497, si su empleador toma una acción adversa dentro de los 90 días de su actividad protegida, la ley presume que fue una represalia, y su empleador debe probar lo contrario.

¿Cuánto tiempo tengo para presentar una reclamación por represalias contra denunciantes en California?

Para reclamaciones bajo la Sección 1102.5 del Código Laboral, tiene tres años desde la fecha de la acción de represalia para presentar una demanda civil. Si presenta ante el Comisionado Laboral en su lugar, el plazo es de seis meses. Otros estatutos tienen plazos diferentes, así que verifique la ley específica que aplica a su situación.

¿Puedo recibir una recompensa económica por reportar fraude contra el gobierno?

Sí. Bajo la Ley de Reclamos Falsos de California (Secciones 12650 a 12656 del Código de Gobierno), los denunciantes que presentan demandas qui tam pueden recibir del 15% al 33% de la recuperación del gobierno si el estado interviene, o del 25% al 50% si el denunciante lleva el caso de manera independiente.

¿Las protecciones al denunciante de California aplican a los contratistas independientes?

La Sección 1102.5 del Código Laboral protege principalmente a empleados, ex empleados y solicitantes. Los contratistas independientes pueden tener protecciones bajo la Ley de Reclamos Falsos para acciones qui tam, y los tribunales han extendido algunas protecciones dependiendo de la naturaleza de la relación laboral. Consulte a un abogado si no está seguro de su clasificación.

Actualizaciones

Verificado de forma independiente contra las fuentes primarias citadas; ley aplicable revisada en busca de cambios recientes

Ley aplicable revisada en busca de cambios recientes

Revisado y aprobado por un editor

La ley detrás de este artículo

Este artículo se apoya en 8 disposiciones legales conservadas en nuestro propio registro jurídico, cada una obtenida de la fuente oficial. Toque una sección para leer el texto vigente.

California Government Code

§ 12650Vigente
(a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) “Claim” means any request or demand, whether under a contract or otherwise, for money, property, or services, and whether or not the state or a political subdivision has title to the money, property, or services that meets either of the following conditions: (A) Is presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the state or of a political subdivision. (B) Is made to a contractor, grantee, or other recipient, if the money, property, or service is to be spent or used on a state or any political subdivision’s behalf or to advance a state or political subdivision’s program or interest, and if the state or political subdivision meets either of the following conditions: (i) Provides or has provided any portion of the money, property, or service requested or demanded. (ii) Reimburses the contractor, grantee, or other recipient for any portion of the money, property, or service that is requested or demanded.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-28 · Lea la sección completa en leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Citada en 136 opiniones judiciales1990s: 32000s: 412010s: 502020s: 42Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2026

Casos destacados: Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (California Supreme Court 2006, 48 Cal. Rptr. 3d 108) · Fassberg Construction Co. v. Housing Authority (California Court of Appeal 2007, 152 Cal. App. 4th 720) · Thompson Pacific Construction Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (California Court of Appeal 2007, 66 Cal. Rptr. 3d 175)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

§ 12940Vigentecitada en 3 de nuestros artículos
It is an unlawful employment practice, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification, or, except where based upon applicable security regulations established by the United States or the State of California: (a) For an employer, because of the 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 of any person, to refuse to hire or employ the person or to refuse to select the person for a training program leading to employment, or to bar or to discharge the person from employment or from a training program leading to employment, or to discriminate against the person in compensation or in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-28 · Lea la sección completa en leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Citada en 1,507 opiniones judiciales1980s: 501990s: 1502000s: 1982010s: 4282020s: 681Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2026

Casos destacados: Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC. (California Supreme Court 2005, 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 436) · Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (California Supreme Court 2003, 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 457) · Hughes v. Pair (California Supreme Court 2009, 46 Cal. 4th 1035)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

California Health and Safety Code

§ 1278.5Vigente
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that it is the public policy of the State of California to encourage patients, nurses, members of the medical staff, and other health care workers to notify government entities of suspected unsafe patient care and conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients and in order to assist those accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that health care is safe. The Legislature finds and declares that whistleblower protections apply primarily to issues relating to the care, services, and conditions of a facility and are not intended to conflict with existing provisions in state and federal law relating to employee and employer relations. (b) (1) A health facility shall not discriminate or retaliate, in any manner, against a patient, employee, member of the medical staff, or other health care worker of the health facility because that person has done either of the following: (A) Presented a grievance, complaint, or report to the facility, to an entity or agency responsible for accrediting or evaluating the facility, or the medical staff of the facility, or to any other governmental entity.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-28 · Lea la sección completa en leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Citada en 91 opiniones judiciales2000s: 42010s: 272020s: 60Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2026

Casos destacados: Shaw v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty. (California Supreme Court 2017, 216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 643) · Taswell v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (California Court of Appeal, 5th District 2018, 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 628) · Brenner v. Universal Health Servs. of Rancho Springs, Inc. (California Court of Appeal, 5th District 2017, 219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 135)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

California Labor Code

§ 1102.5Vigentecitada en 4 de nuestros artículos
(a) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-28 · Lea la sección completa en leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Citada en 905 opiniones judiciales1980s: 61990s: 252000s: 552010s: 2232020s: 596Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2026

Casos destacados: Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (California Supreme Court 1988, 47 Cal. 3d 654) · Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (California Supreme Court 2006, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 638) · Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (California Supreme Court 1998, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 16)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

§ 1102.6Vigente
In a civil action or administrative proceeding brought pursuant to Section 1102.5, once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by Section 1102.5 was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited action against the employee, the employer shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by Section 1102.5.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-28 · Lea la sección completa en leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Citada en 64 opiniones judiciales2000s: 12010s: 82020s: 55Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2026

Casos destacados: Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (California Supreme Court 2022, 12 Cal. 5th 703) · Scheer v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. (California Court of Appeal 2022) · Harris v. City of Santa Monica (California Supreme Court 2013, 56 Cal. 4th 203)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

§ 132aVigentecitada en 2 de nuestros artículos
It is the declared policy of this state that there should not be discrimination against workers who are injured in the course and scope of their employment. (1) Any employer who discharges, or threatens to discharge, or in any manner discriminates against any employee because he or she has filed or made known his or her intention to file a claim for compensation with his or her employer or an application for adjudication, or because the employee has received a rating, award, or settlement, is guilty of a misdemeanor and the employee’s compensation shall be increased by one-half, but in no event more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), together with costs and expenses not in excess of two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Any such employee shall also be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-28 · Lea la sección completa en leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Citada en 119 opiniones judiciales1970s: 31980s: 241990s: 292000s: 182010s: 242020s: 21Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2026

Casos destacados: Nadaf-Rahrov v. the Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2008, 166 Cal. App. 4th 952) · Judson Steel Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (California Supreme Court 1978, 22 Cal. 3d 658) · Arteaga v. Brink's, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 2008, 163 Cal. App. 4th 327)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

§ 6311Vigente
No employee shall be laid off or discharged for refusing to perform work in the performance of which this code, including Section 6400, any occupational safety or health standard, or any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated, where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or their fellow employees. Any employee who is laid off or discharged in violation of this section or is otherwise not paid because the employee refused to perform work in the performance of which this code, any occupational safety or health standard, or any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated and where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or their fellow employees shall have a right of action for wages for the time the employee is without work as a result of the layoff or discharge.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-28 · Lea la sección completa en leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Citada en 15 opiniones judiciales1970s: 21980s: 31990s: 02000s: 12010s: 22020s: 7Aplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 2026

Casos destacados: Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc. (California Court of Appeal 1980, 111 Cal. App. 3d 443) · Hentzel v. Singer Co. (California Court of Appeal 1982, 138 Cal. App. 3d 290) · Dabbs v. Cardiopulmonary Management Services (California Court of Appeal 1987, 188 Cal. App. 3d 1437)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

§ 6399.7Vigente
No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against, any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or has instituted, or caused to be instituted, any proceeding under or related to the provisions of this chapter, or has testified, or is about to testify, in any such proceeding, or because of the exercise of any right afforded pursuant to the provisions of this chapter on such employee’s behalf or on behalf of others, nor shall any pay, seniority, or other benefits be lost for exercise of any such right. A violation of the provisions of this section shall be a violation of the provisions of Section 6310. Notwithstanding Section 6303 or other law, as used in this section, “employee” includes a domestic work employee, except for a person who performs household domestic service that is publicly funded, including publicly funded household domestic service provided to a recipient, client, or beneficiary with a share of cost in that service.

Texto oficial (extracto) · al 2026-07-28 · Lea la sección completa en leginfo.legislature.ca.gov

Citada en 1 opiniones judicialesAplicada por un tribunal por última vez: 1993

Casos destacados: Smedley v. Capps, Staples, Ward, Hastings & Dodson (District Court, N.D. California 1993, 820 F. Supp. 1227)

Identificado automáticamente a partir de las opiniones judiciales que citan esta sección; no es un ranking de qué caso prevalece.

Busque en nuestro registro completo de la ley de EE. UU.: 2.1 millones de secciones, todos los estados y la ley federal

Fuentes y referencias

  1. Sección 1102.5 del Código Laboral de California(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  2. Sección 8547 del Código de Gobierno de California - Ley de Protección al Denunciante(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  3. Sección 12650 del Código de Gobierno de California - Ley de Reclamos Falsos(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  4. Sección 12940 del Código de Gobierno de California - FEHA(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  5. Secciones 6310-6311 del Código Laboral de California - Seguridad Ocupacional(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  6. Sección 132a del Código Laboral de California - Represalias de Compensación Laboral(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  7. Sección 1278.5 del Código de Salud y Seguridad de California(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  8. Sección 6399.7 del Código Laboral de California - Sustancias Peligrosas(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  9. Sección 1102.6 del Código Laboral de California - Carga de la Prueba(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
  10. Aviso de Denunciante del Comisionado Laboral de California(dir.ca.gov).gov
  11. Unidad de Reclamos Falsos de la Fiscalía General de California(oag.ca.gov).gov
  12. Programa de Denunciantes del Auditor Estatal de California(auditor.ca.gov).gov
  13. Departamento de Derechos Civiles de California(calcivilrights.ca.gov).gov
  14. El Gobernador Newsom Firma el SB 53(gov.ca.gov).gov
  15. AB 2299 - Aviso Modelo de Protecciones al Denunciante(leginfo.legislature.ca.gov).gov
Compartir: