Retaliation Claims in California: What Employers Should Know and Do
Introduction
California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) makes it unlawful for employers to retaliate against employees or applicants who engage in “protected activity” (Gov. Code, § 12940(h) (West 2025)). Protected activities include opposing workplace discrimination or harassment, assisting in FEHA investigations, or requesting reasonable accommodations for religious practices or disabilities.
Understanding how retaliation claims work—and how to prevent them—is essential for every California employer committed to fair, legally compliant workplaces.
What Is Protected Activity Under FEHA?
Protected activity covers a broad spectrum:
Reporting or opposing discrimination, harassment, or other unlawful conduct in good faith
Filing a FEHA complaint, testifying, or helping investigate claims
Requesting accommodations for religion or disability—even if the request is denied (Gov. Code, § 12940(l)(4), (m)(2) (West 2025))
An employee does not need to win a separate discrimination claim to be protected from retaliation, as long as their belief in the unlawful conduct was reasonable (Miller v. Dep’t of Corr., 36 Cal.4th 446, 473–74 (2005)).
Key Legal Elements of a Retaliation Claim
To establish retaliation under FEHA, an employee must prove:
They engaged in a protected activity.
They faced an adverse employment action (such as termination, demotion, discipline, or actions materially affecting compensation, duties, or work conditions) (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1052–56 (2005)).
The protected activity was a substantial motivating reason for the adverse action (Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 (2013)).
The employee was harmed.
The adverse action was a substantial factor in causing that harm (Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 713 (2008)).
Retaliation may be shown through unlawful discharge, demotion, discipline, constructive discharge, or a pattern of subtle negative conduct.
Once the employee makes a prima facie case, the employer must present a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for its action. The employee then has an opportunity to show that reason is a pretext and actual retaliation occurred (Yanowitz, 36 Cal.4th at 1042).
What California Employers Should Do
Ensure managers and supervisors understand what counts as protected activity and how retaliation can arise.
Make employment decisions based on well-documented business reasons.
Train employees and managers about FEHA protections and the importance of handling workplace concerns constructively.
Respond promptly to complaints or accommodation requests, investigating and documenting actions thoroughly.
Review workplace policies and practices for compliance.
Taking these steps not only supports legal compliance, but also builds trust and supports a healthy, productive work environment.
Bottom Line
California law provides strong protection for employees who assert their rights or help others do the same. By knowing the rules, focusing on fair and documented decision-making, and responding appropriately to workplace concerns, employers can both comply with the law and foster positive working relationships.
Citations
Gov. Code, § 12940(h), (l)(4), (m)(2) (West 2025); Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 11021 (2025); Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., 36 Cal.4th 1028, 1052–56 (2005); Miller v. Dep’t of Corr., 36 Cal.4th 446, 473–74 (2005); Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 (2013); Mamou v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., 165 Cal.App.4th 686, 713 (2008).
