If you were fired, demoted, written up, or suddenly treated differently after speaking up at work, you are probably asking whether you were retaliated against. The answer often turns on a technical but critical issue: whether you engaged in protected activity in California.
Retaliation is one of the most common claims people raise when they contact my office. They describe stress, hostility, sudden discipline, negative performance reviews, or termination that followed a workplace complaint. But here is the hard truth: most of the time, what they complained about, or the conduct they opposed, was not legally protected under California law. That means they did not experience unlawful workplace retaliation, even if the situation felt unfair or punitive.
Retaliation is not a general label for mistreatment. It is a specific statutory claim. To prove retaliation, you must show that you engaged in protected activity, your employer took an adverse employment action, and there was a causal connection between the two. If the first element is missing, the claim fails. The law protects opposition to unlawful practices. It does not protect every workplace grievance.
I’m Matt Ruggles, and I have been practicing employment law in California for more than 30 years. I began my career representing employers, and I now represent employees exclusively. Over the decades, I have evaluated hundreds of retaliation cases under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, California’s whistleblower statute, and related Labor Code provisions.
In nearly every case, the first and most important question is whether the employee engaged in protected activity. Before we ever analyze timing, shifting explanations, or pretext, we have to determine whether the complaint fits within a statute. That threshold issue often decides the outcome.
I wrote this article because this is where most retaliation claims rise or fall. Nearly every employee who calls believes they were retaliated against, but many complaints involve management style, workload, office politics, or business decisions rather than unlawful conduct. Those situations may feel unfair, but unless the complaint involves discrimination, harassment, wage violations, safety issues, or a request for accommodation, it may not qualify as protected activity. This article explains what counts as protected activity in California retaliation cases, what does not, and how that distinction determines whether you may have a viable retaliation claim.
If you believe you engaged in protected activity in California and were disciplined or terminated afterward, do not assume you have a claim and do not assume you do not. The analysis is statute-driven and highly fact-specific. Call me at the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 for a focused evaluation of your potential retaliation claim.
Protected Activity in California: The Foundation of Every Retaliation Claim
Most retaliation claims under California law follow a defined legal structure. Whether the claim arises under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or the Labor Code, courts analyze the same foundational components.
A retaliation claim generally requires proof of three elements:
Element #1: Protected Activity in California
The employee engaged in conduct protected by statute.
Element #2: Adverse Employment Action Under California Law
The employer subjected the employee to a materially adverse action such as termination, demotion, suspension, or significant discipline.
Element #3: Causal Connection in California Retaliation Cases
The protected activity was a substantial or contributing factor in the adverse action.
If Element #1 fails, the claim fails. Courts do not reach motive or pretext if the employee did not engage in legally protected conduct.
But here is the critical point: “protected activity” is not defined in the abstract. It is defined by statute. California retaliation law does not create a general right to complain about unfair treatment. The protection comes from specific laws that identify what types of conduct are legally protected.
In most workplace retaliation cases in California, protected activity arises under one of two primary statutory frameworks: the FEHA or Labor Code section 1102.5.
If you’ve just been fired and don’t know what to do next, read my opinion: I Just Got Fired: What Should I Do Right Away?
Protected Activity Under FEHA in California Retaliation Cases
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12940(h), prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose discrimination, harassment, or other conduct made unlawful by the statute.
In Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., the California Supreme Court articulated this framework clearly. Later decisions such as Price v. Victor Valley Union High School District and Nejadian v. County of Los Angeles reaffirmed that employees must establish protected activity, adverse action, and causation.
FEHA retaliation claims proceed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting structure. But before burden shifting begins, the court asks a threshold question: did the employee engage in protected activity within the meaning of the FEHA?
In other words, was the complaint tied to discrimination, harassment, or another employment practice made unlawful by the statute?
If you want to understand how California law protects workers from discrimination and retaliation, read my article: Fair Employment and Housing Act: How It Protects California Employees.
Protected Activity Under Labor Code § 1102.5 (California Whistleblower Law)
California’s whistleblower statute, Labor Code section 1102.5, protects employees who disclose violations of law or refuse to participate in unlawful conduct.
This statute defines protected activity differently than the FEHA. Instead of focusing on discrimination and harassment, section 1102.5 centers on reporting legal violations.
While the overall retaliation elements resemble those under the FEHA, the burden of proof differs significantly. In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. and Vatalaro v. County of Sacramento, the courts clarified that once an employee demonstrates that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action, the employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same action regardless.
Again, none of that analysis matters unless Element #1 is satisfied. The question always comes back to the same issue: did the employee engage in protected activity as defined by the governing statute?
If you are wondering whether being fired after filing a complaint qualifies as wrongful termination, read my detailed explanation: Is Being Fired After Filing a Complaint Considered Wrongful Termination?
What Counts as Protected Activity in California?
In most retaliation cases, protected activity involves opposing conduct that violates a specific statute. Below are common examples of what qualifies as protected activity in California:
- Opposing discrimination or harassment prohibited by the FEHA
This includes complaining about discrimination based on race, gender, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected characteristics. It can involve speaking to HR, reporting a supervisor’s comments, or objecting to unequal treatment in promotions, pay, or discipline. - Filing or participating in discrimination complaints
You are protected if you file a complaint with HR, assist a co-worker with their complaint, serve as a witness in an internal investigation, or file a charge with the California Civil Rights Department or the EEOC. Participation itself is protected, even if the complaint is later dismissed. - Reporting suspected violations of law
Under Labor Code section 1102.5, reporting conduct you reasonably believe violates state or federal law qualifies as protected activity. This may include reporting fraud, regulatory violations, financial misconduct, or other unlawful practices, whether internally or to a government agency. - Refusing to participate in unlawful conduct
If a supervisor instructs you to falsify records, ignore safety regulations, misclassify employees, or otherwise break the law, your refusal to participate may be protected. - Reporting unpaid wages or overtime under Labor Code section 98.6
Complaining about unpaid commissions, minimum wage violations, meal and rest break violations, or overtime can qualify as protected activity. Filing a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner is also protected. - Reporting workplace safety violations under Labor Code section 6310
Raising concerns about unsafe working conditions, inadequate protective equipment, OSHA violations, or hazardous environments is protected. This applies whether the complaint is made internally or to Cal/OSHA. - Requesting disability or religious accommodations
Asking for medical leave, modified duties, schedule changes, remote work, or religious scheduling adjustments can qualify as protected activity. The law protects the request itself, even if the employer ultimately denies it.
These statutes protect opposition to unlawful conduct. They do not protect general workplace dissatisfaction, personality conflicts, office politics, or disagreements over business strategy.
The key question is always the same: did the complaint involve a legal right protected by statute?
If the answer is yes, it may qualify as protected activity in California. If not, a retaliation claim may fail before it ever reaches motive or pretext.
What Is Protected Activity Under the FEHA in California?
Many retaliation claims in California arise under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, commonly referred to as the FEHA. While the prior section described protected activity in general terms, the FEHA provides one of the most common statutory foundations for retaliation claims involving discrimination and harassment.
The FEHA prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who engage in certain protected conduct connected to unlawful employment practices.
Under the FEHA, protected activity generally falls into two broad categories.
Category 1: Opposition to Practices Forbidden by the FEHA
This includes opposing discrimination, harassment, or other employment practices made unlawful by the statute. An employee might complain about racial discrimination, object to sexist comments, challenge disability-based mistreatment, or raise concerns about age discrimination.
The key point is that the opposition must relate to conduct the FEHA actually prohibits.
Category 2: Participation in FEHA Proceedings
This includes filing, assisting with, or participating in complaints, investigations, or proceedings under the FEHA, whether internal or external. For example, you are protected if you:
- File a complaint with HR
• Participate in an internal investigation
• Provide a witness statement
• File a charge with the California Civil Rights Department or the EEOC
Participation is protected even if the complaint is later dismissed or the investigation does not substantiate the claim.
Most FEHA retaliation cases fit into one of these two categories: opposition or participation.
Good Faith and Objective Reasonableness in Protected Activity Cases
Understanding the categories is only the first step. Courts also examine whether the employee’s opposition meets certain standards.
One of the most important principles in FEHA retaliation law comes from the California Supreme Court’s decision in Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.
The Court made clear that you do not have to prove discrimination actually occurred in order to be protected.
You do not have to be correct.
But you must satisfy two requirements.
Requirement 1: Objective Reasonableness
A reasonable person in your position could believe the conduct violated the FEHA. The belief cannot be speculative or irrational. It must be grounded in facts that would lead a reasonable employee to suspect unlawful discrimination or harassment.
Requirement 2: Good Faith
You must genuinely believe the conduct was unlawful. Courts look at whether the complaint was made honestly, not as a pretext for some unrelated dispute.
If both standards are satisfied, your opposition may qualify as protected activity even if a court later concludes that no discrimination occurred.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the FEHA is remedial legislation. Its purpose is to encourage employees to report discrimination and harassment before the situation escalates.
Later, in Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., the Court of Appeal reinforced that FEHA retaliation claims are fact-specific and must be interpreted in light of the statute’s protective purpose.
In practical terms, protected opposition can include conduct such as:
- Supporting a co-worker’s request for medical leave
• Objecting to discriminatory treatment based on protected characteristics
• Filing or assisting with internal discrimination complaints
• Taking steps to protect yourself from harassment
You do not need to use legal terminology. You do not need to cite Government Code section 12940 in your complaint. Courts evaluate the totality of your communication. They ask whether a reasonable employer would understand that you were opposing unlawful discrimination.
If HR ignored your complaint and you are wondering what that means legally, read my blog: What To Do When HR Ignores Your Complaint in California.
Is Requesting a Disability Accommodation Protected Activity in California?
In addition to opposition and participation, the FEHA expressly protects employees who request reasonable accommodations for disability or religion.
This deserves separate attention because many employees do not realize that the act of requesting accommodation is itself protected activity under California law.
That protection applies even if:
- The request is denied.
• The employer disputes the medical documentation.
• The accommodation is later determined to be unreasonable.
The statute protects the act of requesting accommodation, not just the outcome.
In Moore v. Regents of University of California, the court confirmed that amendments to the FEHA explicitly prohibit retaliation against employees for requesting accommodations.
This issue frequently arises in cases involving medical leave, modified schedules, remote work requests, or religious scheduling adjustments. When an employee requests accommodation and is disciplined shortly afterward, timing often becomes central evidence in a retaliation claim.
If you are unsure whether your employer properly handled your accommodation request, read my blog: Did My Employer Follow the FEHA Interactive Process?
If your situation involves both disability discrimination and retaliation, read my post: Disability Discrimination and Retaliation in California.
Protected Activity Under Labor Code § 1102.5 (Whistleblower Law)
California’s primary whistleblower statute is Labor Code section 1102.5. It protects employees who report violations of law or refuse to participate in unlawful conduct.
In general, section 1102.5 protects employees who:
- Disclose violations of state or federal law
• Report suspected legal violations internally or to a government agency
• Refuse to participate in unlawful conduct
This statute is broader than many employees realize. But it is also narrower than many assume.
The key issue is whether the disclosure involved an actual or reasonably suspected violation of law.
Part A: Objective Reasonableness Is Required
In People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc., the California Supreme Court clarified that whistleblower protection requires objective reasonableness.
That means two things:
Requirement 1: Reasonable Belief
The employee must reasonably believe that a law or regulation was violated.
Requirement 2: Legal Violation, Not Preference
The disclosure must concern unlawful conduct, not simply poor management or bad business judgment.
The statute does not protect:
- Disagreements over discretionary business decisions
• Internal policy debates
• Personality conflicts
• Complaints about conduct that is unfair but not illegal
The employee does not need to prove that a violation actually occurred. But the belief must be objectively reasonable.
Importantly, the Court also clarified that employees do not have to be the first person to report the violation. Repeating or supporting an earlier report can still qualify as protected activity.
Part B: Reporting Illegal Conduct by Co-Workers Is Protected
In McVeigh v. Recology San Francisco, the court confirmed that section 1102.5 protects reports of illegal conduct by fellow employees, not just wrongdoing by the employer itself.
This matters in cases involving fraud, safety violations, financial misconduct, or regulatory violations committed by supervisors or colleagues.
The focus is on whether the reported conduct violates a law or regulation, not on who committed it.
Part C: The “Normal Job Duties” Limitation
Whistleblower law becomes more complicated when reporting legal compliance is part of the employee’s job.
In Manavian v. Department of Justice, the Court of Appeal drew a distinction between:
- Disclosures made strictly as part of normal job duties through ordinary reporting channels
• Disclosures that go beyond assigned duties or are made outside routine compliance responsibilities
If an employee’s role is to identify compliance issues and report them through established channels, courts may scrutinize whether the employee engaged in protected activity or simply performed assigned job duties.
This issue frequently arises in cases involving compliance officers, auditors, HR professionals, and internal investigators.
The analysis is fact-specific. The question becomes whether the employee stepped outside routine responsibilities in a way that qualifies as protected disclosure.
Part D: The Powerful Burden of Proof Under Section 1102.5
Once protected activity is established under section 1102.5, the burden of proof shifts dramatically.
In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., the California Supreme Court held that once an employee demonstrates that protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse action, the burden shifts to the employer.
The employer must then prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same action regardless of the protected activity.
That is a significantly higher burden than the burden applied under FEHA’s McDonnell Douglas framework.
In Vatalaro v. County of Sacramento, the court confirmed that this contributing-factor and clear-and-convincing standard replaces the traditional burden-shifting approach in section 1102.5 cases.
This makes whistleblower claims powerful when the facts support them.
But again, none of that matters unless the employee first establishes protected activity under the statute.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
Whistleblower claims can be some of the strongest retaliation cases in California.
But only if the disclosure involves an actual or reasonably suspected violation of law.
Saying, “I disagree with this decision,” is not whistleblowing. Saying, “I believe this violates state or federal law,” may be.
The difference between those two statements often determines whether the case survives summary judgment or ends before it begins.
Determining what counts as protected activity in California is often the decisive issue in a retaliation case. If you are unsure whether your complaint qualifies under FEHA or Labor Code section 1102.5, contact me at the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 to discuss your specific facts before critical deadlines pass.
Wage and Safety Complaints as Protected Activity in California
Not all retaliation claims arise under the FEHA or the whistleblower statute. California’s Labor Code contains separate protections for employees who complain about unpaid wages or unsafe working conditions.
These statutes are frequently triggered in real-world workplaces and often involve strong timing evidence.
Wage Complaints as Protected Activity Under Labor Code § 98.6
Labor Code section 98.6 prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who assert rights related to wages and hours.
Protected conduct under section 98.6 includes:
- Complaining about unpaid wages or overtime
• Filing a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner
• Participating in a Labor Commissioner investigation
• Asserting rights under California’s wage and hour laws
Importantly, the statute includes a powerful evidentiary feature:
90-Day Presumption:
If an employer takes adverse action within 90 days of the employee engaging in protected wage-related activity, the law creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation.
That means the burden shifts to the employer to prove the action was not retaliatory.
This presumption makes timing critical. If discipline, demotion, or termination occurs shortly after a wage complaint, the employer must explain the timing with credible evidence.
Safety Complaints as Protected Activity Under Labor Code § 6310
Labor Code section 6310 protects employees who report workplace safety violations.
Protected activity includes:
- Reporting unsafe working conditions internally
• Filing a complaint with Cal/OSHA
• Participating in a workplace safety investigation
• Refusing to perform work that would violate safety standards
Safety retaliation claims often arise in industries such as construction, manufacturing, healthcare, transportation, and warehousing. But they can occur in any workplace where employees raise concerns about hazardous conditions.
As with wage retaliation, timing frequently becomes the central evidentiary issue. When discipline closely follows a safety complaint, courts examine whether the employer’s explanation is legitimate or pretextual.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
Wage and safety retaliation claims are often more straightforward than discrimination-based retaliation claims.
If you complained about unpaid wages or unsafe working conditions and were disciplined shortly afterward, the timeline may speak loudly.
But again, the complaint must concern a statutory right. Complaining that a workplace is inefficient or poorly managed is not the same as reporting a violation of wage laws or safety regulations.
The statute matters. The timing matters. And the connection between the two is where these cases are won or lost.
If you were disciplined or fired for refusing unsafe work, read my detailed explanation: Fired for Refusing Unsafe Work in California: A Case Study.
What Is Not Protected Activity Under California Retaliation Law?
This is the section most employees, and many lawyers, fail to analyze carefully.
Not every complaint is protected. Not every act of opposition qualifies as protected activity. Retaliation law is statute-driven. If the conduct does not fall within a specific statutory protection, there is no retaliation claim.
Below are common situations that do not qualify as protected conduct.
Workplace Complaints That Are Not Protected Activity in California
The FEHA protects opposition to practices made unlawful by the FEHA. It does not protect general workplace advocacy.
In Dinslage v. City and County of San Francisco, the court made clear that the FEHA protects opposition to unlawful discrimination, not policy disagreements or internal management disputes.
Complaints about the following are generally not protected unless tied to unlawful discrimination:
- Management style
• Budget priorities
• Staffing decisions
• Office politics
• Personality conflicts
If the complaint does not reference discrimination, harassment, or another practice prohibited by the FEHA, it may fall outside retaliation protection.
Being treated unfairly is not the same as being subjected to unlawful discrimination.
Disagreements Over Business Judgment
Employees often assume that exposing a “bad decision” qualifies as whistleblowing. It does not.
In People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla’s, Inc., the California Supreme Court emphasized that whistleblower protection under Labor Code section 1102.5 does not extend to disagreements over discretionary business decisions or internal policy debates that do not implicate legal violations.
The statute protects disclosures of unlawful conduct.
It does not protect disagreements over strategy, pricing, staffing models, or corporate direction.
Not every bad decision is illegal.
Communications Strictly Within Assigned Compliance Duties
Whistleblower protection can become complicated when reporting compliance issues is part of the employee’s job.
In Manavian v. Department of Justice, the Court of Appeal held that communications made strictly as part of assigned job duties, through normal reporting channels, may not qualify as protected disclosures.
If reporting regulatory compliance issues is literally your job, courts may examine whether you engaged in protected activity or simply performed assigned responsibilities.
This issue frequently arises with:
- Compliance officers
• Auditors
• HR professionals
• Internal investigators
Courts look closely at whether the employee stepped outside routine duties in a way that qualifies as protected disclosure.
Conduct Not Tied to Employment Practices
Under the FEHA, protected activity must relate to discriminatory employment practices.
If your advocacy concerns political issues, public policy debates, or matters unrelated to employment discrimination, it may not fall within the FEHA’s retaliation protection.
There must be an employment nexus.
Opposing discrimination in the workplace qualifies. Engaging in general advocacy that does not involve employment practices may not.
Claims Based Solely on Statutes With Exclusive Remedies
Not every statutory violation supports a common law wrongful termination claim.
In Dutra v. Mercy Medical Center Mt. Shasta, the court held that certain Labor Code provisions, including section 132a relating to workers’ compensation retaliation, provide exclusive remedies.
When the Legislature creates a specific statutory remedy, courts may not allow additional tort-based wrongful termination claims built on the same conduct.
This distinction matters when evaluating whether a retaliation claim can support broader damages beyond the statute itself.
Matt’s Legal Perspective
The hardest conversation I have with prospective clients goes like this: what you complained about may have been unfair, but it may not have been unlawful.
Retaliation law protects legal rights. It does not guarantee workplace harmony. It does not protect every conflict. It does not convert every unfair decision into a lawsuit.
The question is always the same: did the complaint fall within a statute that protects it?
If the answer is no, even harsh treatment may not be actionable. If the answer is yes, the case becomes very different.
What To Do If You Engaged in Protected Activity in California and Were Disciplined
If you believe you were disciplined, demoted, or terminated after engaging in protected activity, what you do next matters. Retaliation claims are highly fact-specific and heavily dependent on documentation.
Take the following steps immediately.
Step #1: Document the Protected Conduct
Write down exactly what you said, who you said it to, and when you said it. Be specific. Identify whether your complaint involved discrimination, wage violations, safety concerns, legal violations, or an accommodation request. The precise content of your communication often determines whether it qualifies as protected activity.
If you are preparing to raise a workplace complaint and want to understand whether it should be verbal or written, read my post: How to Make a Workplace Complaint in California: Verbal Versus Written.
Step #2: Document the Employer’s Response
Keep a record of any changes in treatment after your complaint. Note new discipline, negative performance evaluations, exclusion from meetings, schedule changes, or termination. Courts closely examine whether the employer’s behavior shifted after the protected activity.
Step #3: Preserve Evidence
Save relevant emails, text messages, written complaints, performance reviews, and internal communications. Identify potential witnesses. Do not alter documents. Preserve them in their original form whenever possible.
Step #4: Watch the Timeline
Timing frequently becomes central evidence. If discipline closely follows your complaint, that sequence may support an inference of retaliation. Courts often scrutinize the gap between the protected activity and the adverse action.
Step #5: Consult Counsel Early
Retaliation claims are statute-driven. Whether your conduct qualifies as protected activity depends on specific legal standards. Early legal analysis can determine whether the facts support a viable claim and can help preserve critical evidence before it disappears.
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 What Counts as Protected Activity for California Employees
California provides some of the strongest employee protections in the country. But retaliation law is precise.
The question is not:
“Was I treated unfairly?”
The question is:
- Did I engage in protected activity under a specific statute?
- Did my employer know about it?
- Did it contribute to the adverse action?
If the answer is yes, the law may be on your side.
If the answer is no, even unfair treatment may not be actionable.
That distinction (difficult, technical, and sometimes frustrating) is where experienced legal analysis matters most.
Frequently Asked Questions About Protected Activity in California Retaliation Cases
FAQ #1: What is protected activity in California?
Protected activity in California refers to conduct protected by statute, such as opposing discrimination under the FEHA, reporting legal violations under Labor Code section 1102.5, complaining about unpaid wages, or requesting a disability accommodation. If your complaint does not fall within a specific law, it may not qualify as protected activity under California retaliation law.
FAQ #2: What counts as protected activity under the FEHA?
Protected activity under FEHA includes opposing unlawful discrimination or harassment and participating in FEHA investigations or complaints. To qualify, you must have a good faith and objectively reasonable belief that the conduct violated California employment law. Complaints about unfair treatment alone do not automatically meet this standard.
FAQ #3: Does reporting a violation of law qualify as protected activity in California?
Yes. Reporting a reasonably suspected violation of state or federal law may qualify as protected activity in California under Labor Code section 1102.5. However, the report must concern unlawful conduct, not simply a disagreement over business strategy or management decisions.
FAQ #4: Is complaining about my supervisor protected activity?
Not necessarily. Complaints about management style, personality conflicts, workload, or office politics are not protected activity in California unless they involve discrimination, harassment, wage violations, safety concerns, or another statutory violation. California retaliation law protects legal rights, not general workplace disputes.
FAQ #5: Is requesting a disability accommodation protected activity under California law?
Yes. Requesting a reasonable accommodation for a disability or religion is protected activity under the FEHA. Even if the accommodation is denied, an employer may not retaliate against you for making the request. In many workplace retaliation cases in California, accommodation requests become the foundation of the retaliation claim.
FAQ #6: How does timing affect a retaliation claim in California?
Timing is often critical in a retaliation claim in California. When discipline or termination closely follows protected activity in California, courts may infer a causal connection. In wage cases under Labor Code section 98.6, a 90-day presumption of retaliation may apply. However, timing alone is rarely enough without supporting evidence.
FAQ #7: Do I have to be the first person to report a violation for it to be protected activity?
No. Under Labor Code section 1102.5, you do not have to be the first person to report a violation for the disclosure to qualify as protected activity. Supporting or repeating a complaint about unlawful conduct may still be protected under California whistleblower law.
FAQ #8: How do I know if I have a viable retaliation claim in California?
The threshold question in any retaliation claim in California is whether you engaged in protected activity in California under a specific statute such as the FEHA or Labor Code section 1102.5. If your conduct does not meet that definition, you may not have a viable claim, even if the employer’s conduct felt unfair. A careful legal analysis of your facts is often required.
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.
