When an employee refuses unsafe work and is then terminated, California law takes that seriously. When the employer responds by offering an explanation that does not hold up under basic scrutiny, the law tends to respond even more seriously.
I’m Matt Ruggles and I’ve been practicing employment law in California for more than 30 years. I regularly speak with employees who were fired shortly after raising safety concerns or refusing work they reasonably believed was dangerous. Almost every one of those conversations starts the same way. The employee is not trying to cause problems. They are not looking for a lawsuit. They simply want to know whether what happened to them might be retaliation.
That question is rarely answered by slogans or legal buzzwords. Retaliation cases turn on timing, credibility, documentation, and whether the employer’s explanation actually makes sense when tested against the facts. That is why I often use case studies. A real case shows how retaliation issues surface, how employers try to justify their decisions, and how those justifications hold up once discovery begins.
This case study involves an employee who refused unsafe work involving power tools he had never been trained to use. Shortly after that refusal, his employment ended. The employer later claimed the termination had nothing to do with safety and everything to do with a serious misconduct allegation. As the case progressed, that explanation collapsed under its own weight.
The matter ultimately resolved for more than four times the employee’s annual income, not because the employer wanted to be generous, but because the facts made trial a very expensive risk. More importantly, the case illustrates how retaliation claims actually work in California and why safety complaints, even informal ones, can carry legal protection.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
Retaliation cases rarely announce themselves loudly at the outset. They reveal themselves through timing, credibility gaps, and explanations that require far more imagination than evidence.
If you’ve just been fired and don’t know what to do next, read my post: I Just Got Fired: What Should I Do Right Away.
I’ve handled retaliation cases involving unsafe work for decades, and I know how these situations typically unfold. If you were terminated after refusing work you believed was unsafe, you should get a clear answer early. You can contact me at the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058.
Refusing Unsafe Work Without Training: The Facts Behind the Termination
Tom’s job occasionally required hands-on physical tasks. Some of those tasks involved the use of power tools and equipment that can be perfectly safe when used by trained personnel but extremely dangerous when handled by someone who has been given little more than a vague instruction to “figure it out.”
Tom fell squarely into the latter category.
He received no formal training on the equipment he was expected to use. There were no written safety protocols. No job hazard analyses. No certification process. Supervision was minimal at best. The expectation appeared to be that Tom would learn by doing – an approach that works fine for office software and far less well for equipment capable of causing permanent injury.
When Tom was instructed to perform particularly dangerous work using these tools, he did not refuse out of stubbornness or laziness. He explained, calmly and directly, that he did not feel safe performing the task without proper training or supervision.
That explanation should have triggered a conversation about safety.
Instead, it triggered his termination.
Under California law, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees for engaging in protected activity. That protection is not limited to formal complaints or lawsuits. California Labor Code section 6310 makes it unlawful for an employer to terminate or otherwise punish an employee for reporting unsafe working conditions, refusing work they reasonably believe is dangerous, or cooperating in an investigation related to workplace safety or legal compliance. Even when an employer later claims the termination was for a different reason, the law focuses on timing, motive, and whether the stated explanation holds up under scrutiny.
If you’re curious why wrongful termination lawsuits under the FEHA often backfire on employers, read my blog Wrongful Termination Lawsuits Under the FEHA: A Costly Gamble for Employers.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
California law protects employees who refuse to perform work they reasonably believe is unsafe. The law does not require employees to gamble with their fingers, or worse, to prove their loyalty.
To learn more about how California law treats retaliation after complaints are made, read my blog: Is Being Fired After Filing a Complaint Considered Wrongful Termination?
Employer Justifications After Firing an Employee for Refusing Unsafe Work
After terminating Tom, the employer did not cite safety concerns, insubordination, or performance deficiencies. Instead, the company claimed it had acted decisively to address sexual harassment.
The allegation came from the manager’s wife, who was also employed by the company.
Sexual harassment allegations must always be taken seriously. They warrant investigation, documentation, and appropriate corrective action. For that reason, this aspect of the case demanded careful handling from the outset. We did not dismiss the accusation reflexively, nor did we minimize its significance.
But seriousness cuts both ways. When an employer claims to have terminated an employee for harassment, the law expects the employer to have done the work that such a claim requires.
Here, the work was missing.
There was no contemporaneous complaint. No written report. No witness statements. No investigative notes. No findings. No disciplinary steps short of immediate termination. And perhaps most telling of all, the allegation surfaced only after Tom refused to perform unsafe work.
It was a narrative that, even at an early stage, strained common sense.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
Courts and juries do not treat post-hoc misconduct allegations as presumptively true. When accusations appear only after protected activity, the question is not whether they are serious but rather whether they are real.
Building a Retaliation Case After Being Fired for Refusing Unsafe Work
From the beginning, our approach was deliberate.
We had three core objectives.
First, protect Tom from the reputational damage that can follow an unsupported harassment accusation.
Second, determine whether the employer’s stated reason for termination could survive scrutiny once documents and sworn testimony entered the picture.
Third, establish the timeline clearly and unambiguously: safety refusal first, termination second, justification third.
This was not a case that benefited from early theatrics. Retaliation cases mature with discovery. They improve when decision-makers are forced to explain themselves under oath and when documents (or the lack of them) tell their own story.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
The strongest retaliation cases are rarely built on outrage alone. They are built on patience, proof, and a willingness to let the facts corner the defense.
Discovery Exposes Pretext in a Retaliation for Safety Complaint Case
Discovery exposed the fault lines in the employer’s story.
Despite the claim that Tom had been terminated for sexual harassment, the employer could not produce a single document reflecting a contemporaneous investigation. There were no interview notes. No emails expressing concern before the termination decision. No HR memoranda. No written findings. No record of prior complaints involving Tom.
What discovery did reveal was a company that operated informally, documented little, and reacted quickly when problems arose, often without stopping to ask whether its assumptions were correct.
In employment litigation, the absence of evidence is not always neutral. In this case, it was deafening.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
When an employer claims it acted to address serious misconduct but cannot show its work, the explanation starts to look less like compliance and more like convenience.
To better understand what conduct actually qualifies as harassment under California law, read my blog: Examples of Workplace Harassment in California
Depositions Reveal Retaliation After a Safety Complaint
Depositions marked the inflection point.
Decision-makers struggled to articulate a consistent reason for Tom’s termination. Some emphasized the harassment allegation. Others referenced vague concerns about judgment or fit. None could explain why no investigation was conducted or why Tom’s safety refusal played no role in the decision-making process.
Testimony also revealed deeper issues: assumptions treated as facts, conclusions reached before questions were asked, and a readiness to accept a damaging allegation without verification when it solved an immediate problem.
By the time key depositions concluded, the case no longer resembled a good-faith response to misconduct. It looked increasingly like retaliation followed by rationalization.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
Depositions do more than preserve testimony. They expose decision-making quality. Weak decisions, once revealed, are difficult to defend to a jury.
By the time most employees call me, the employer has already settled on its story. I know where to look to test whether that story holds up. If you believe you were fired for refusing unsafe work or after raising a safety concern, contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058.
From Misconduct Allegation to Pretext for Retaliation
As discovery closed, the defense narrative narrowed.
The sexual harassment explanation lost credibility. The safety issues moved to the forefront. The timing became impossible to explain away. What remained was a straightforward question: did the employer terminate Tom because he refused unsafe work and then attempt to justify that decision after the fact?
The evidence increasingly answered that question.
At that stage, the case stopped being complicated. And that simplicity worked in Tom’s favor.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
Complex stories protect employers. Simple timelines expose them. Once pretext is established, retaliation cases often sell themselves.
Settlement After Retaliation for Refusing Unsafe Work
Settlement discussions became candid.
Defense counsel understood the risks. A jury would hear about unsafe work, a reasonable refusal, a sudden termination, and a justification that appeared only when it was needed. The exposure was not limited to back pay. It included emotional distress damages and the very real possibility of punitive damages.
Ultimately, the employer agreed to resolve the case for more than four times Tom’s annual income.
That result was not driven by sympathy. It was driven by math.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
Employers pay meaningful settlements when trial risk becomes tangible. Credible retaliation cases command premiums because uncertainty favors juries, not defendants.
Fired for Refusing Unsafe Work: Why Retaliation Is Costly for Employers
Tom’s case is a reminder of two fundamental principles of California employment law.
First, employees have the right to refuse unsafe work without fear of retaliation.
Second, employers who terminate employees for protected activity and attempt to justify that decision with unsupported allegations do so at significant legal risk.
Retaliation rarely announces itself honestly. But with discovery, depositions, and careful litigation, it is usually exposed.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
In employment cases, truth has a way of surfacing. When it does, timing and common sense tend to carry the day.
If you want to avoid common pitfalls when negotiating your severance, read my post: 7 Employee Mistakes That Ruin Severance Negotiations.
FAQs: Fired for Refusing Unsafe Work and Retaliation in California
Is it legal to be fired for refusing unsafe work in California?
In many situations, no. Being fired for refusing unsafe work can be unlawful if the employee reasonably believed the work posed a safety risk and raised that concern in good faith. California law protects employees from retaliation when they refuse work they reasonably believe could cause serious injury or violate safety standards.
Is refusing unsafe work considered protected activity under California law?
Yes. Refusing unsafe work and raising safety concerns can qualify as protected activity. Retaliation for safety complaints is prohibited under California law, even when the complaint is informal and even if the employee is not ultimately proven correct about the hazard. The key issue is whether the belief was reasonable and expressed in good faith.
What counts as retaliation for a safety complaint?
Retaliation for a safety complaint can take many forms, including termination, suspension, discipline, demotion, or sudden accusations of misconduct. In many cases, employees are fired after making a safety complaint and the employer later offers a different explanation for the termination. Courts focus heavily on timing and credibility when evaluating these claims.
Can my employer fire me for refusing unsafe work if they say it was for another reason?
Employers often claim they terminated an employee for performance issues or misconduct after the fact. But if the evidence shows the employee was terminated after a safety complaint and the justification appeared only later, that can support a retaliation claim. Pretext, meaning a false or exaggerated reason, is a common issue in California workplace retaliation cases.
Do I need to file a formal safety complaint to be protected from retaliation?
No. Employees do not need to file a written complaint or contact Cal-OSHA to be protected. Informally raising safety concerns or refusing unsafe work can still be protected activity. Many refusing unsafe work retaliation cases involve verbal complaints or refusals made directly to supervisors.
When should I talk to a lawyer if I was fired after refusing unsafe work?
If you were fired for refusing unsafe work or believe you were fired after making a safety complaint, you should speak with an employment lawyer as early as possible. Timing matters in retaliation cases, and early review can help determine whether the employer’s explanation is credible or whether the facts point to unlawful retaliation.
If you’re trying to figure out how to choose the right attorney for your case, read my guide: How Do I Select a California Employment Lawyer?
Final Thoughts on Being Fired for Refusing Unsafe Work in California
Cases involving employees who are fired for refusing unsafe work are rarely as complicated as employers try to make them. The analysis usually comes down to timing, credibility, and whether the employer’s explanation makes sense when measured against the facts. When an employee raises a safety concern or refuses dangerous work and is then terminated shortly afterward, that sequence matters under California law.
What often turns these cases is not outrage or rhetoric, but proof. Discovery, documents, and sworn testimony tend to reveal whether a termination decision was made for legitimate reasons or whether it was retaliation followed by justification. Employers are allowed to discipline employees. They are not allowed to punish employees for protected safety activity and then backfill a reason once the damage is done.
If you believe you were fired for refusing unsafe work, the most important step is getting an informed assessment early. Retaliation cases are won by facts, not assumptions, and the sooner those facts are evaluated, the clearer your options become.
Contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 to Evaluate Your Potential Lawsuit
Matt Ruggles has a thorough understanding of California employment laws and decades of practical experience litigating employment law claims in California state and federal courts. Using all of his knowledge and experience, Matt and his team can quickly evaluate your potential claim and give you realistic advice on what you can expect if you sue your former employer.
Contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 for a free, no-obligation evaluation.
Blog posts are not legal advice and are for information purposes only. Contact the Ruggles Law Firm for consideration of your individual circumstances.
