Wrongful Termination in California (2026): Laws, Deadlines, How to File

California is an at-will state: under Labor Code § 2922, a job with no specified term "may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other." That means a firing is not wrongful just because it was unfair. It is wrongful termination in California only when the reason breaks a specific law, most often the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which makes it unlawful to "discharge the person from employment" because of a protected trait (Gov. Code § 12940(a)).

This guide covers each ground for a California claim, the deadlines that apply to each, where to file, and what a court can award. For how other states handle the same questions, see our guide to wrongful termination laws by state.

Information last verified on 2026-10-10. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.

Jurisdiction scope: This article covers California law on wrongful termination: FEHA (Gov. Code §§ 12900 and following), the public-policy tort from Tameny, contract claims, Labor Code retaliation and whistleblower sections, and personnel-file access, with brief notes on the federal overlay. It does not cover when your final paycheck is due (see California final paycheck laws) or what a severance agreement can require (see California severance pay laws).

Is California an at-will state?

Yes. Labor Code § 2922 sets the default rule that either side can end employment with no specified term. California courts and the Legislature have carved out the exceptions this page covers, and an employer that fires for one of those forbidden reasons is liable even though the job was at-will. Our California at-will employment guide explains the doctrine itself.

Grounds for a wrongful termination claim in California

Most California claims fall into one of these categories. Each is explained below.

Discrimination under FEHA

FEHA covers any employer "regularly employing five or more persons" (Gov. Code § 12926(d)). That reaches far smaller businesses than federal Title VII, which applies to employers with 15 or more employees (42 U.S.C. 2000e(b)). The Civil Rights Department (CRD) adds that harassment is prohibited in all workplaces, even those with fewer than five employees.

Section 12940(a) bars discharging someone 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.

Section 12940(h) separately makes it unlawful to fire someone for opposing practices FEHA forbids, or for filing a complaint, testifying or assisting in a FEHA proceeding.

Off-duty cannabis use

Gov. Code § 12954(a)(1) makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate in hiring, termination or any term of employment based on "the person's use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace." The rule does not apply to employees in the building and construction trades. It does not bar scientifically valid drug screening that does not detect nonpsychoactive cannabis metabolites, and it does not permit possessing, being impaired by or using cannabis on the job. It also does not override state or federal laws that require drug testing, including testing required for federal funding, federal licensing-related benefits or a federal contract, and it does not apply to positions that require a federal background investigation or security clearance (§ 12954(e), (f)).

California also has its own family and medical leave law, the California Family Rights Act (Gov. Code § 12945.2), which covers employees with more than 12 months of service and 1,250 hours.

Firing that violates public policy (a Tameny claim)

California lets a fired employee sue in tort when the firing itself violates public policy. In Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980), an employee alleged he was fired for refusing to take part in an illegal price-fixing scheme. The California Supreme Court held that "when an employer's discharge of an employee violates fundamental principles of public policy, the discharged employee may maintain a tort action and recover damages traditionally available in such actions."

Not every policy qualifies. In Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, the court said the policy must be:

1. delineated in either constitutional or statutory provisions;
2. "public" in the sense that it benefits the public rather than serving merely the interests of the individual;
3. well established at the time of the discharge; and
4. substantial and fundamental.

Deadline: no statute names a deadline for a Tameny claim. A California Court of Appeal held that the two-year period in Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 applies to a Tameny claim based on FEHA's policy against disability discrimination, and that FEHA's one-year period does not (Prue v. Brady Co./San Diego, Inc. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1367, an intermediate appellate decision, not a California Supreme Court ruling). Because other deadlines on this page run as short as 90 days, get legal advice promptly.

Breach of a promise to fire only for good cause

At-will status is a default, and the parties can change it. In Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000), the California Supreme Court recognized that an employer and employee can form an implied-in-fact agreement that the employee will be dismissed only for good cause. Under Guz, courts look at the totality of the circumstances, including "the personnel policies or practices of the employer, the employee's longevity of service, actions or communications by the employer reflecting assurances of continued employment, and the practices of the industry." But long service, even with raises, promotions and good reviews, "cannot alone form an implied-in-fact contract that the employee is no longer at will."

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does less. In Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988), the court held "that tort remedies are not available for breach of the implied covenant in an employment contract to employees who allege they have been discharged in violation of the covenant." Guz added that the covenant cannot substantively alter the contract's actual terms, so it does not turn an at-will job into a good-cause job.

California's general contract limitations periods are four years for an action on a written contract (Code Civ. Proc. § 337) and two years for an obligation not founded on a writing (Code Civ. Proc. § 339). Which one fits a particular employment promise is a question for a court.

Retaliation laws that protect specific activities

Several California statutes bar firing an employee for a particular protected act. Each has its own rules.

• Workers' compensation (Lab. Code § 132a). A worker who claims a firing was workers' compensation discrimination petitions the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, and "these proceedings may not be commenced more than one year from the discriminatory act or date of termination of the employee." Relief includes reinstatement and lost wages and work benefits, plus an increase in compensation by one-half, up to $10,000, and costs up to $250. The statute also makes the violation a misdemeanor.
• Labor Code rights (Lab. Code § 98.6). Section 98.6(b) bars discharge or retaliation for conduct the section protects, which includes lawful off-duty conduct claims under Lab. Code § 96(k) and rights under Lab. Code §§ 1101 and following. An adverse action within 90 days of the protected activity creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation. Relief includes "reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits," and § 98.6(b)(3) adds a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per employee for each violation, awarded to the employee.
• Paid sick days (Lab. Code § 246.5(c)). An employer may not "discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an employee for using accrued sick days." Action within 30 days of the events the section lists creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation.
• Jury duty (Gov. Code § 12945.8(a)(1)). An employer may not "discharge or in any manner discriminate against an employee for taking time off to serve as required by law on an inquest jury or trial jury," and the employee must give reasonable advance notice unless that is not feasible (§ 12945.8(c)(1)). The same FEHA section covers time off to comply with a court subpoena or order as a witness and protections for crime victims. Lab. Code § 230, which used to hold these rules, now applies only to conduct on or before December 31, 2024 (§ 230(k)).
• Military service (Mil. & Vet. Code § 394(a)). "A person shall not discriminate against a member of the military or naval forces of the state or of the United States because of that membership."

A complaint to the Labor Commissioner for discharge or retaliation under § 98.6 must be filed "within one year after the occurrence of the violation," a period the Labor Commissioner may extend for good cause (Lab. Code § 98.7(a)).

Whistleblower protection

Lab. Code § 1102.5(b) bars retaliation against an employee for disclosing information the employee reasonably believes shows a violation of law, whether the disclosure goes to a government agency, a person with authority over the employee, or someone with authority to investigate or correct the problem, and regardless of whether the disclosure is part of the employee's job duties. Section 1102.5(c) separately bars retaliation for refusing to participate in an activity that would violate a state or federal statute, rule or regulation.

Section 1102.6 sets the burden of proof. Once the employee shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected activity was "a contributing factor" in the firing, the employer must show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action for legitimate, independent reasons. In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703, the California Supreme Court held that courts should apply that statutory framework, and that employees "need not satisfy the McDonnell Douglas test."

A court may award a civil penalty "not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per employee for each violation" (§ 1102.5(f)(1)) and reasonable attorney's fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action (§ 1102.5(j)). Section 1102.5 itself states no deadline for a civil lawsuit, and courts have disagreed: a federal trial court applied a one-year period, which an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum reversed for compensatory damages (Lokker v. Walmart Inc., No. 24-3445, 2025). Plan around the shortest possible deadline and get legal advice promptly. A retaliation complaint to the Labor Commissioner is due within one year of the violation (Lab. Code § 98.7(a)). Our California whistleblower laws guide covers the other whistleblower statutes in more depth.

Constructive discharge: when quitting counts as a firing

In Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238, the California Supreme Court explained that constructive discharge "occurs when the employer's conduct effectively forces an employee to resign," and that it is "legally regarded as a firing rather than a resignation."

The test is objective: whether "a reasonable person faced with the allegedly intolerable employer actions or conditions of employment would have no reasonable alternative except to quit." The conditions must be unusually aggravated or amount to a continuous pattern, and "single, trivial, or isolated acts" are not enough. The court also rejected a rule that would impose liability based only on what the employer should have known.

Deadlines for California wrongful termination claims

Under federal law, the EEOC says each discrete act, such as a demotion followed by a firing, usually carries its own deadline.

How to file a discrimination complaint with the Civil Rights Department

CRD handles FEHA complaints through its online complaint process. In CRD's words, "In employment cases, you must submit an intake form to CRD within three years of the date you were last harmed." Gov. Code § 12960(e)(6) allows narrow extensions, including up to 90 days for a person who first learned the facts in the 90 days after the deadline.

You cannot go straight to court on a FEHA claim. CRD says that "in employment cases only, you must obtain an immediate Right-to-Sue notice from CRD before filing your own lawsuit in court." The notice issues on request, and otherwise no later than one year after the complaint is filed (§ 12965(c)(1)(A)). The lawsuit is then due within one year from the date of the notice (§ 12965(c)(1)(D)). Section 12965(c)(1)(F) pauses CRD's own deadlines to issue the notice during CRD dispute resolution and under a written agreement between CRD and the employer, but it does not extend your one year to sue. That year is tolled only in narrower cases, such as a charge filed with both CRD and the EEOC and deferred between them, where the deadline becomes the later of the federal right-to-sue period or one year from CRD's notice (§ 12965(e), (f)).

CRD and the EEOC share complaints. CRD's FAQ says a complaint filed with the EEOC "will automatically be filed with CRD as well," and a CRD complaint alleging facts that would violate a law the EEOC enforces is automatically filed with the EEOC. In California, the EEOC says a charge is due within 300 days of the alleged harm, against an employer with 15 or more employees for Title VII or disability claims or 20 or more employees for age claims, and a federal lawsuit is due within 90 days of receiving a federal Notice of Right to Sue. Our wrongful termination hub covers the federal process.

What a court can award

Remedies depend on which claim succeeds.

• FEHA. In Commodore Home Systems, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 32 Cal.3d 211, the California Supreme Court held punitive damages are available under FEHA, reasoning that when a statute creates a cause of action, "all forms of relief granted to civil litigants generally, including appropriate punitive damages, are available unless a contrary legislative intent appears." The court "may award" the prevailing party reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness fees, but a prevailing employer recovers fees only if the action was frivolous, unreasonable or groundless when brought, or the plaintiff kept litigating after it clearly became so (Gov. Code § 12965(c)(6)).
• No federal-style cap. Federal law caps combined compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII at $50,000 to $300,000 depending on employer size (42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3)). The FEHA sections cited on this page contain no comparable cap.
• Tameny claims. Because it is a tort, a successful plaintiff may "recover damages traditionally available in such actions."
• Implied covenant. Under Foley, a breach of the implied covenant supports contract remedies only, not tort damages.
• Statutory penalties. Up to $10,000 per employee for each violation under § 1102.5(f)(1) and § 98.6(b)(3); the one-half increase in compensation, up to $10,000, under § 132a.

None of these figures predicts what any particular case is worth.

Your personnel file

Lab. Code § 1198.5 gives "every current and former employee, or their representative," the right to inspect and receive a copy of the personnel records the employer keeps about the employee's performance, including education or training records, or about any grievance. The request must be in writing (or on the employer's form). The employer must make the records available within 30 calendar days, which a written agreement can extend to no more than 35 days, and may charge only the actual cost of copying.

Recent and upcoming changes

• SB 477 (Stats. 2025, ch. 321). Amended Gov. Code §§ 12926, 12960 and 12965, effective January 1, 2026. The current text of those sections, including the tolling rules described above, reflects these amendments.
• AB 406 (Stats. 2025, ch. 148). An urgency statute effective October 1, 2025. It amended Gov. Code § 12945.8 (jury duty, witness and crime-victim time off) and Lab. Code § 246.5, and re-added Lab. Code § 230 as a version that applies only to conduct on or before December 31, 2024.
• SB 497 (Stats. 2023, ch. 612). Effective January 1, 2024, added the 90-day rebuttable presumption in § 98.6(b)(1) and the civil penalty of up to $10,000 per employee in § 98.6(b)(3), and amended § 1102.5.
• AB 2495 (Stats. 2026, ch. 748). Approved September 29, 2026. It amends Lab. Code § 1019 to make it unlawful for an employer to use "unfair immigration-related practices" to retaliate against workers exercising employment rights, with a 90-day rebuttable presumption and a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per employee or person for each violation. It is a non-urgency bill with no delayed operative date, so it takes effect January 1, 2027 (Cal. Const. art. IV, § 8(c)).
• SB 947 (Stats. 2026, ch. 859). Approved September 30, 2026, effective July 1, 2027. It adds Lab. Code §§ 1520 and following: an employer may not rely solely on an automated decision system for a disciplinary or termination decision, employees get a right to a description of their own data and a notice after the system is used, retaliation is barred, and the Labor Commissioner enforces it.
• AB 1940 (2026). Would have added menopause to FEHA. The Governor vetoed it on September 30, 2026, so it is not law.

Practical steps after a firing in California

Write down the dates and what was said, and keep copies of reviews, messages and any written policies you can lawfully keep. Request your personnel file in writing under § 1198.5. Do not sign a release or separation agreement before reading it closely, because it may give up the claims described here; our California severance pay laws guide explains what California allows those agreements to require. Several deadlines on this page are one year or less, and the federal EEOC charge deadline in California is 300 days, so act promptly.

Related

• Wrongful termination laws by state
• California at-will employment laws
• California whistleblower laws
• California severance pay laws
• California final paycheck laws

Disclaimer: This article is general legal information about California wrongful termination law (FEHA, the California Labor Code and California case law), not legal advice. It reflects sources verified on 2026-10-10. For advice about your own situation, contact the California Civil Rights Department, the Labor Commissioner, a legal aid office, or a lawyer licensed in California.

Last updated: 2026-10-10.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue for wrongful termination in California?

Only if the firing broke a specific law. California is at-will under Lab. Code § 2922, but FEHA (Gov. Code § 12940), the Tameny public-policy tort, implied-contract claims and Labor Code retaliation sections such as § 132a, § 98.6 and § 1102.5 bar firings for particular reasons. A lawyer can assess whether any of them fits your facts.

How long do I have to file a wrongful termination claim in California?

It depends on the claim. A FEHA intake form must reach CRD within three years (Gov. Code § 12960(e)(5)), a § 132a petition is due within one year of the firing, and a Labor Commissioner retaliation complaint is due within one year (Lab. Code § 98.7(a)). For a Tameny public-policy claim, a Court of Appeal decision applied the two-year period in Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1 (Prue v. Brady Co., 2015), so get advice promptly.

Do I need a right-to-sue notice before suing my employer in California?

Yes, for a FEHA claim. CRD says employment complainants must obtain a Right-to-Sue notice before filing their own lawsuit, and it can be issued immediately on request. The lawsuit must then be filed within one year from the date of the notice (Gov. Code § 12965(c)(1)(D)).

Does FEHA apply to small employers in California?

FEHA's discrimination rules apply to employers regularly employing five or more persons (Gov. Code § 12926(d)), a lower threshold than the 15 employees federal Title VII requires. CRD says harassment is prohibited in all workplaces, even those with fewer than five employees.

Can I be fired for reporting illegal activity in California?

Lab. Code § 1102.5(b) bars retaliation against an employee who discloses a reasonably believed violation of law to a government agency, a supervisor, or someone with authority to investigate or correct it. A court may award a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per employee for each violation, plus reasonable attorney's fees to a successful plaintiff.

Can a California employer fire me for using cannabis off duty?

Generally not. Gov. Code § 12954 makes it unlawful to discriminate in termination based on a person's use of cannabis off the job and away from the workplace. The rule does not cover employees in the building and construction trades or positions requiring a federal background investigation or security clearance, does not override laws that require drug testing, and does not permit possession, impairment or use on the job.

Are wrongful termination damages capped in California?

The FEHA sections cited on this page set no dollar cap like federal law's $50,000 to $300,000 cap (42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3)), and Commodore Home Systems v. Superior Court (1982) held punitive damages are available under FEHA. What a court awards in any case depends on the evidence.

Can I get my personnel file after I am fired in California?

Yes. Lab. Code § 1198.5 gives current and former employees the right to inspect and receive a copy of personnel records about their performance or grievances. Make the request in writing; the employer must comply within 30 calendar days, extendable by written agreement to no more than 35 days.

What if I quit because my job became unbearable?

California recognizes constructive discharge. In Turner v. Anheuser-Busch (1994), the California Supreme Court asked whether a reasonable person facing the employer's conduct would have no reasonable alternative except to quit, and held that single, trivial or isolated acts are not enough.