If you’ve been fired, mistreated, or forced out of your job, calling an employment lawyer might feel like the natural next step. After being fired, many people honestly believe that have been “wrongfully terminated” because they have done nothing wrong, complied with the policies and workplace rules, never been warned or disciplined, and always received high praise in your annual job evaluations. But here’s a harsh reality: the overwhelming majority of terminated employees seeking legal representation—easily 95% or more—never make it past that first phone call because employment lawyers reject most cases.
Why Did an Employment Lawyer Reject My Case?
Because most California employees, through no fault of their own, misunderstand what the law actually protects. Most believe “wrongful termination” means being fired unfairly (wrongly). It doesn’t. They assume workplace bullying is illegal. It isn’t—unless it meets very specific legal criteria for harassment or discrimination. They call with stories of complete unfairness in the workplace, only to be told the attorney is “not accepting new cases,” is “in trial,” or simply is not interested.
California’s employment laws are intricate, filled with technicalities and exceptions that make navigating them feel like walking a legal tightrope. The critical distinction is this: a termination is “wrongful” under California law only if the termination is illegal. While all illegal terminations are unfair, of course, not all unfair terminations are illegal. Instead, only terminations that violate a specific law; in most cases, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, the California Labor Code, or any other California statute or regulation that prohibits certain employment decisions.
Just because a termination decision feels unfair (or actually is totally unfair!) doesn’t mean it’s unlawful or violated any specific law. That’s why employment lawyers scrutinize every potential case, looking for clear legal violations and provable damages. If your case doesn’t meet those standards, no matter how unjust your experience seems, most lawyers are unwilling to take the risk.
So, what are the most common reasons employment lawyers turn cases away? Below, we break down the key factors that separate legally actionable claims from those that, unfortunately, don’t hold up in court.
Reason 1: Potential Client Alleges Unfairness Rather Than Illegal Discrimination, Harassment, or Retaliation
Many California employees mistakenly believe that “wrongful termination” means they were fired unfairly. In reality, wrongful termination under the law refers only to illegal termination—meaning the employer violated specific laws, such as those prohibiting discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. Most terminated employees disagree with the reason for their termination, finding it unfair or unjustified, and they conflate this with wrongful termination. However, an employer’s decision can be wrong to the employee but not illegal under California law.
California employment laws protect workers from discrimination based on race, gender, disability, age (over 40), and other protected characteristics, as well as unlawful harassment and retaliation. However, if an employer decides for reasons that seem arbitrary, unreasonable, poorly thought out, or simply unfair, that does not necessarily mean a lawyer can pursue a legal claim.
Example:
An employee is passed over for a promotion despite having more experience than the selected candidate. If the employer’s decision was based on favoritism, office politics, or personal preference, this may feel unfair, but it is not illegal unless the promotion decision was based on consideration of a protected category like race, sex, or disability. Absent facts to demonstrate a discriminatory or retaliatory intent by the employer, there would likely be no viable legal claim for an employment lawyer to pursue.
This distinction is critical—unfair treatment is not the same as unlawful treatment, and legal claims must be based on violations of the law, not just an employee’s perception of unfairness.
Reason 2: Potential Client Alleges Bullying Rather Than Illegal Harassment
Many California employees believe they are experiencing illegal workplace harassment when, in reality, they are facing bullying or a toxic work environment—which is not against the law. This distinction is critical because California employment laws do not prohibit general bullying, unfair treatment, or a hostile work environment unless it is directly tied to a legally protected characteristic, such as race, gender, or disability.
Under California law, workplace harassment is governed by the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)—a law designed to protect employees from discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on specific protected characteristics. However, FEHA is not a workplace civility code—it does not regulate general rudeness, hostility, or unfair treatment unless it is directly tied to an employee’s protected status.
The biggest obstacle most plaintiff-employees face when trying to assert a harassment claim is that they are really just alleging workplace bullying, which is not illegal. Embarrassing or even humiliating someone at work is not unlawful unless it is tied to a legally protected characteristic such as race, gender, disability, age (over 40), sexual orientation, or religion.
Harassment vs. Bullying: What’s the Difference?
- Illegal Harassment occurs when an employer, supervisor, or coworker targets an employee with unwelcome conduct specifically because of their protected characteristic (e.g., making sexist remarks to a female employee or using racial slurs toward a minority employee). This type of harassment creates a hostile work environment and is unlawful under California’s FEHA.
- Bullying or a Toxic Work Environment, while unpleasant, is not illegal unless it is tied to a protected category. An employer or supervisor can be rude, overly critical, or even verbally abusive, but if their behavior is directed at all employees equally—without any connection to race, gender, or another protected category—it does not meet the legal definition of workplace harassment.
Example:
A manager frequently yells at employees, belittles their work, and creates a stressful environment. If this behavior is directed at all employees and is not specifically because of someone’s gender, race, disability, or another protected characteristic, then it is not illegal harassment, even though it may be harmful and unprofessional.
However, if the manager only yells at female employees or singles out older employees with degrading comments, that could be considered illegal workplace harassment.
If you are experiencing a toxic work environment, it is important to understand that California law does not protect employees from general workplace mistreatment—it only protects against discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on a protected category.
Reason 3: Potential Client Alleges “Protected Conduct” After Adverse Employment Action, Not Before It
“Retaliation” is getting fired after engaging in “protected conduct,” which usually means making an internal complaint about discrimination or harassment, reporting violations of the law, or complaining about workplace safety. In other words, a claim of retaliation must include protected conduct (i.e. an internal complaint) before the employee is terminated, not after. If you reported discrimination, wage violations, or other misconduct only after being fired, demoted, or disciplined, your employer obviously couldn’t have retaliated against you for something that hadn’t happened yet. A complaint made after an adverse action is simply too late to serve as the basis for a retaliation claim.
On the other hand, if you engaged in protected activity long before the adverse action—say, you reported a violation a year before being fired for unrelated reasons—it’s often too distant in time to establish a clear link. Courts look for a direct cause-and-effect relationship between the complaint and the employer’s action, and a long gap can weaken or break that connection.
Example:
An employee with a history of tardiness is fired. After termination, the fired employee files a complaint about a workplace safety violation that never had been raised prior to termination. Because the employer had no knowledge of a complaint before deciding to terminate the employee, there’s no legal retaliation claim—just unfortunate timing.
Reason 4: Potential Client Alleges Wrongful Termination After Voluntarily Resigning Employment
To have a wrongful termination claim, you must have been fired. If you resigned voluntarily, your case is almost always unviable because the law generally does not protect employees who choose to leave their jobs.
Example:
An employee quits after their workload significantly increases, making the job stressful and overwhelming. Even if they felt they had no real choice, this does not qualify as wrongful termination because the employer is entitled to increase or decrease the amount of work demanded from the employee.
Note: Some employees try to argue that they were “forced to quit” under a legal theory called constructive discharge. However, proving this is extremely difficult. You must show that your working conditions were so intolerable that any reasonable person would have felt compelled to resign—and that these conditions were caused by illegal conduct (not just unfair treatment or job stress). Constructive discharge is rarely successful and almost never applies in typical resignation cases.
Reason 5: Potential Client’s Claim is Based on Short-Term Employment
Employment lawyers are often reluctant to take cases involving short-term employment because the potential financial recovery is too low. In wrongful termination cases, damages are typically based on lost wages and benefits. If you were only employed for a short period before being fired, even if you were wrongfully terminated, the amount you could recover may not be worth the time and cost of litigation.
Most employment attorneys work on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if they win or settle your case. If your damages are minimal, the case is not financially viable for either the attorney or the client.
Reason 6: Potential Client’s Claim is Based on Technical Violations That Do Not Support Sufficient Damages
Some employees believe that any violation of California employment laws—no matter how small—automatically creates a strong case. However, technical violations such as minor payroll errors or clerical mistakes rarely justify legal action because they do not result in significant financial harm.
Most employment lawyers work on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if they successfully recover money for the client. If your potential damages are too low, an attorney cannot justify investing the time and resources to take the case. The cost of litigation would likely exceed any potential recovery, making these claims financially unviable.
Examples of Low-Damage Technical Claims:
- Pay Stub Formatting Errors – An employer forgets to include their full company name or address on a pay stub, but the employee is paid correctly and on time. While this is technically a violation of California employment laws, there is no real financial harm to the employee, making it an unlikely case for an attorney to take.
- Final Paycheck Issued Slightly Late – An employer provides a final paycheck two days late after an employee resigns. Although this violates California’s final pay laws, unless significant waiting time penalties apply, the potential damages are too small to justify the cost of litigation.
- Missed Meal Periods Over the Course of a Year – An employee occasionally missed meal breaks due to a busy work schedule, but the employer only failed to provide a handful of required meal period premiums over a full year of employment. While meal break violations can be significant in systemic, widespread cases, a few missed meal periods over an extended timeframe typically do not result in enough damages to justify litigation.
- Overtime Paid at Straight Time – An employee regularly worked one to two hours of overtime per month but was mistakenly paid at their regular hourly rate instead of the required 1.5x overtime rate. While this is a legal violation, if the total unpaid overtime over a year amounts to only a few hundred dollars, the damages may not be large enough for an attorney to take on contingency.
Reason 7: Potential Client Alleges Excruciating Details Based on a Long-Winded Explanation
When an employment lawyer evaluates a case, they’re looking for clear, legally significant facts—not a drawn-out story filled with years of workplace drama. A strong claim can usually be summed up in one or two sentences because it’s based on specific illegal actions, not a long history of workplace frustrations.
If a potential client starts the initial consultation with, “OK, there’s a lot of background to this story…”, that’s usually a red flag that there’s no real legal claim—just a difficult work experience. Employment claims aren’t built on years of tension with a bad boss. They are almost always based on key events that happened near the termination or another adverse action, such as a demotion, pay cut, or suspension.
Example:
An employee writes a 10-page email detailing every time their boss was rude to them over the last five years, every disagreement they’ve had with coworkers, and how they feel they were treated unfairly. However, nowhere in the story do they point to illegal discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. An attorney reviewing this would quickly recognize that there is no actionable claim and would decline the case.
If it takes more than a few minutes to explain why your termination or mistreatment was illegal, you probably don’t have a strong case.
Reason 8: Potential Client Alleges Union-Related Grievances Covered by Mandatory Arbitration
Union Employees and Mandatory Arbitration
If you are a union member, many of your employment rights, as well as the dispute resolution process, are typically governed by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). This means that instead of filing a lawsuit in court, you must resolve employment disputes through your union’s grievance and arbitration process.
Employment lawyers generally cannot override a union contract, meaning they cannot take cases involving unionized employees unless the union itself has engaged in misconduct—such as failing to fairly represent you in a grievance process (known as a “duty of fair representation” claim). As a result, many employment attorneys will not accept cases that involve claims from employees that are represented by a union.
Public Sector Employees Face Different Legal Hurdles
Although public sector employees are protected by the FEHA in the same manner as private sector employees are protected by the FEHA, but public sector employees are often subject to different rules, civil service protections, or internal administrative appeal processes. If you work for the government—whether it’s the state, a county, or a city—your legal claims may be handled through internal procedures or subject to different laws than private-sector employees. Because of those unique requirements, most employment attorneys prefer claims against private-sector employers, not the government.
Reason 9: Potential Client Alleges Stale Claim Close to or Beyond Statute of Limitations
If you’ve waited until the last minute to seek legal help, ask yourself: why? If you truly had a strong case, wouldn’t you have acted sooner? Delaying legal action is one of the biggest red flags for an employment lawyer. Most people that feel they have a strong case for wrongful termination seek advice immediately, not after months or years have passed.
California employment laws have strict filing deadlines (statutes of limitations).If you wait too long, your case is dead in the water—no exceptions.
Even if you’re technically still within the statute of limitations, bringing a claim right before the deadline puts your case at a serious disadvantage. Employment lawsuits require evidence—documents, witnesses, emails, and records—all of which become harder to obtain the longer you wait. Witnesses forget details, emails get deleted, and employers conveniently “lose” records. An attorney isn’t going to scramble to build a last-minute case unless there’s a compelling reason for the delay.
Reason 10: Potential Client Alleges Claim Based on Speculation, Conjecture, and Guesswork
“I just know they fired me for an illegal reason.”
If that’s the strongest argument you have, you don’t have a case. Employment claims must be built on facts and evidence, not gut feelings, speculation, or theories. A seasoned employment lawyer can immediately spot a claim that’s based on guesswork rather than proof—and they won’t take the case.
What Weak Evidence Looks Like (From an Experienced Lawyer’s Perspective):
- Contradictory Stories: If your version of events changes or doesn’t align with the facts, an attorney won’t waste time trying to make sense of it.
- “I Have Tons of Witnesses!” If your so-called “witnesses” are all former employees who also left on bad terms, that’s a red flag. Courts see them as biased, and they often disappear or change their stories when it’s time to testify.
- Hunches and Personal Grudges: “My boss never liked me” or “I just feel like it was discrimination” won’t cut it. If there’s no clear link between your termination and your protected status (like race, gender, or disability), your case isn’t legally viable.
- Made-Up or Stretched Evidence: If a potential client is trying to “find” proof where none exists—cherry-picking emails, exaggerating incidents, or twisting facts—any good attorney will see right through it and refuse the case.
Example:
An employee suspects they were laid off because their manager didn’t like them. They have no emails, no discriminatory comments, no witness testimony, and no proof of retaliation or illegal motive—just a bad feeling. Without evidence, there’s no case.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What are the most common reasons an employment lawyer won’t take a case?
Employment lawyers often reject cases if they lack legal merit, fall outside the statute of limitations, involve minimal financial damages, or require proof that the employee does not have. Cases based on unfairness rather than illegal conduct are normally declined.
Is unfair treatment at work the same as wrongful termination?
No, wrongful termination is a legal claim that requires proof of discrimination, retaliation, or other illegal conduct. Unfair treatment, favoritism, or bad management decisions alone do not qualify as wrongful termination.
Can I sue my employer for workplace bullying or a toxic work environment?
Workplace bullying or a toxic environment is only illegal if it involves harassment based on a protected characteristic like race, gender, disability, or age. General mistreatment or a difficult boss does not usually support a legal claim.
What if I reported misconduct but only after I was fired?
Retaliation claims require that you engaged in legally protected activity before your employer took action against you. If you filed a complaint after termination, it cannot serve as the reason for your firing, making a retaliation claim unlikely to succeed.
Do I need to have worked at a job for a long time to have a case?
Not necessarily, but short-term employment can make legal claims less viable, as potential damages are limited. Lawyers prioritize cases where financial recovery justifies the cost of litigation, making it harder to take cases involving brief employment.
Can I still sue for wrongful termination if I resigned?
Typically, no. If you voluntarily resigned, you must prove that working conditions were so intolerable that no reasonable person would stay (constructive discharge). Otherwise, a wrongful termination claim may not be viable.
Conclusion
While employees often feel wronged at work, not every workplace dispute is legally actionable. Employment lawyers assess cases based on the strength of the legal claims and the potential damages involved. If an attorney declines a case, it does not mean the employee was treated fairly—it likely means the case does not meet the legal requirements for a lawsuit.
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 consultation.
Blog posts are not legal advice and are for information purposes only. Contact the Ruggles Law Firm for consideration of your individual circumstances.
