Los Angeles Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy Lawyer

If you need a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy attorney in Los Angeles, Mesriani Law Group is here to help. California is an at-will employment state—which means most employees can be terminated at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all. But that broad employer discretion has a critical limit: an employer cannot fire an employee for a reason that violates California’s public policy. When termination crosses that line, it becomes a Tameny claim—one of the most powerful wrongful termination causes of action available under California law.

A wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim allows at-will employees who would otherwise have no remedy to hold employers accountable when a termination implicates the fundamental values the state has enshrined in its statutes and constitution. See our blog on wrongful discharge in violation of public policy in California. Every case is handled at Mesriani Law Group on a No Win, No Fee contingency basis.

At-Will Employment and the Public Policy Exception

California Labor Code § 2922 establishes the default rule: employment without a specified term may be terminated by either party at will. Under this doctrine, an employer generally does not need a reason, advance notice, or progressive discipline before terminating an employee. See our blog on California employee termination laws.

However, the California Supreme Court recognized in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) that the at-will doctrine is not absolute. An employer who terminates an employee for a reason that violates a fundamental public policy of the state is liable in tort—not just for contract breach. This distinction matters enormously: tort liability opens the door to compensatory damages for emotional distress and punitive damages that are unavailable in a simple contract claim.

See our blog on can you be fired without warning in California and our guide on wrongful termination in California.

What Constitutes a Violation of Public Policy?

Not every unfair or unjustified termination constitutes a violation of public policy. California courts require that the public policy at issue meet four criteria, known as the Gantt factors: it must be (1) delineated in a constitutional provision, statute, or regulation; (2) for the benefit of the public rather than private interests; (3) well-established at the time of the discharge; and (4) substantial and fundamental. See our blog on what constitutes a violation of public policy in California.

California courts have recognized four primary categories of discharge that qualify as violations of public policy:

1. Refusing to Commit an Illegal Act

An employee who is terminated for refusing to do something illegal—falsify safety records, participate in fraud, lie to regulators, or obstruct a government investigation—has a strong Tameny claim. California’s public policy strongly protects employees from being pressed into illegal conduct by their employers under threat of losing their jobs. See our guide on whistleblower violations.

2. Exercising a Statutory Right or Obligation

Terminating an employee for exercising a right expressly granted by statute—or for fulfilling a statutory duty—violates public policy. Courts have consistently held that the following exercises of statutory rights are protected:

• Filing a workers’ compensation claim after a workplace injury (Labor Code § 132a)
• Serving on jury duty or responding to a subpoena to testify
• Taking protected family or medical leave under CFRA or the federal FMLA
• Voting during working hours as required by California Elections Code
• Filing a wage claim or complaint with the Labor Commissioner
• Requesting a reasonable accommodation for a disability under FEHA

3. Discrimination Based on a Protected Characteristic

Terminations motivated by an employee’s race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, or other protected characteristic violate not only FEHA but also California’s constitutionally grounded public policy against discrimination. This overlap between FEHA discrimination claims and Tameny claims gives employees additional avenues of recovery and may extend the statute of limitations in some circumstances. See our guide on employment discrimination in California.

4. Whistleblowing and Reporting Illegal Activity

An employee who is terminated for reporting a suspected legal violation—to a government agency, a supervisor, or even internally—is protected under both Labor Code § 1102.5 and the public policy tort. California courts have long recognized that the public policy encouraging employees to report illegal conduct is fundamental and well-established. See our guide on whistleblower violations in California.

Common Scenarios That Qualify as Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

See our blog on California wrongful termination laws. The following are well-established examples of terminations that violate public policy under California law:

Workers’ Compensation Retaliation

California Labor Code § 132a explicitly prohibits employers from discriminating against or terminating an employee who files or intends to file a workers’ compensation claim after a workplace injury. Firing an injured employee for filing a claim—or for threatening to file one—is a per se violation of public policy and is independently actionable under § 132a as well as under Tameny.

Jury Duty and Witness Service

California Labor Code § 230 prohibits employers from discharging an employee for taking time off to serve as a juror or to respond to a court subpoena as a witness. These obligations are civic duties enshrined in statute and protected by the public policy exception to at-will employment.

OSHA Safety Reporting

An employee who reports a workplace safety violation to Cal/OSHA, the federal OSHA, or to a supervisor is protected from termination under Labor Code § 6310. Terminating an employee for flagging a safety hazard, requesting a safety inspection, or refusing to perform a task they reasonably believe poses an imminent danger violates public policy. See our guide on employment retaliation in California.

Family and Medical Leave

An employee who is terminated while on—or as a result of taking—CFRA or FMLA protected leave has both a statutory claim under the leave statutes and a Tameny public policy claim. Courts have repeatedly held that interfering with or retaliating against protected leave constitutes a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. See our guide on FMLA in California.

Refusing to Participate in Fraudulent or Deceptive Practices

An employee who refuses to falsify financial records, submit fraudulent invoices to a government agency, misrepresent product safety data, or participate in consumer fraud has a strong public policy wrongful termination claim if fired for that refusal. California’s laws against fraud, financial misrepresentation, and consumer deception provide the statutory and constitutional foundation that the Gantt factors require.

Political Activities and Voting

California Labor Code § 1101 and § 1102 prohibit employers from controlling or directing employees’ political activities and from retaliating against an employee for their political views or affiliations. Terminating an employee for refusing to support a candidate, for political donations, or for political speech protected by state law violates public policy.

Constructive Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

A wrongful discharge in violation of public policy does not require the employer to formally terminate the employee. If an employer deliberately creates working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable employee in the same position would feel compelled to resign, and those conditions are themselves a violation of public policy—through discrimination, harassment, or retaliation—the resulting resignation constitutes a constructive discharge actionable as wrongful termination. See our detailed blog on constructive dismissal vs. wrongful termination in California.

California courts evaluate constructive discharge using a three-part test: the employer intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable that a reasonable employee in the plaintiff’s position would have no reasonable alternative but to resign. Common constructive discharge tactics that may violate public policy include:

• Sustained harassment or hostile treatment tied to a protected characteristic following a complaint or protected activity
• Removing all meaningful job responsibilities, transferring to an undesirable role, or eliminating a position immediately after protected whistleblowing
• Making explicit or implied threats of adverse consequences if the employee does not resign
• Denying required reasonable accommodations and creating conditions that make it impossible for a disabled employee to perform the job

How a Tameny Claim Differs from Other Wrongful Termination Claims

Understanding the distinction between a Tameny tort claim and other wrongful termination theories is critical to evaluating your options:

• Tameny tort vs. FEHA statutory claim: Both may be available when discrimination or harassment drives a termination. The Tameny tort may allow a longer statute of limitations (three years vs. the FEHA complaint requirement) and bypasses some procedural hurdles, but FEHA provides its own administrative remedies and fee-shifting
• Tameny tort vs. implied contract: An implied contract claim requires showing the employer made promises of job security. A Tameny claim requires no such promise—only that the reason for termination violated a fundamental public policy
• Punitive damages: Because Tameny is a tort claim, punitive damages are available when the employer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud. These are not available in a pure contract claim

What to Do If You Were Wrongfully Discharged in Violation of Public Policy

1. Document the circumstances of your termination: Preserve any written communications, performance reviews, incident reports, disciplinary records, or other documentation that reflects the employer’s stated or real reason for termination.
2. Record any protected activity that preceded the discharge: Note the dates of any workers’ comp filing, safety report, discrimination complaint, leave request, or refusal of illegal conduct. Temporal proximity between the protected activity and the termination is key evidence.
3. Preserve evidence independently: Save emails, texts, and documents to a personal device or account before losing access. Be careful not to take proprietary trade secrets—consult an attorney about what can be retained.
4. Identify witnesses: Note the names of coworkers who observed the protected activity, the employer’s hostile reaction, or the circumstances of the termination. Witness testimony can be critical.
5. Contact Mesriani Law Group promptly: The statute of limitations for a Tameny public policy claim is generally two to three years depending on the underlying statute, but some related claims—such as FEHA administrative complaints—have shorter windows. Do not delay.

Filing Deadlines

• Tameny tort claim (general): Two years from the date of termination under the general tort statute of limitations, or three years if the underlying public policy is grounded in a statute with a longer period
• Workers’ compensation retaliation (§ 132a): One year from the adverse action to file with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board
• FEHA-based discharge: File a complaint with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) within three years of the termination; one year to file a civil lawsuit after receiving a right-to-sue notice
• CFRA/FMLA retaliation: Two years from the retaliatory discharge, or three years for willful violations

What Compensation Can You Recover?

• Back pay: Wages, salary, benefits, bonuses, and commissions lost from the date of termination through judgment or settlement
• Front pay: Future lost earnings if reinstatement is not feasible or appropriate
• Compensatory damages: Emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation, damage to professional reputation, and loss of quality of life—available in tort but not contract claims
• Punitive damages: Available when the employer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud in carrying out the public-policy-violating termination
• Reinstatement: A court order restoring your position when reinstatement is feasible and appropriate
• Attorney’s fees and costs: Recoverable under FEHA and some other underlying statutes when the plaintiff prevails

Why Choose Mesriani Law Group for Your Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy Case?

• Over 30 years representing Los Angeles employees in Tameny public policy wrongful termination cases throughout California
• Hundreds of millions of dollars recovered for clients across all forms of wrongful termination and employment retaliation
• Deep knowledge of the Tameny doctrine, the Gantt factors, and the statutes and constitutional provisions that qualify as the basis for a public policy claim
• Experience litigating workers’ compensation retaliation, safety reporting, family leave, and illegal activity refusal cases as Tameny torts and under their underlying statutes
• No Win, No Fee—you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you
• Available 24/7 in English, Spanish, and Farsi for a free, confidential consultation