Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy: Guidance for California Business Owners
Introduction
California business owners must understand that even at-will employees cannot be terminated for reasons that violate fundamental public policy. This doctrine gives employees the right to sue for damages if discharged for a reason recognized as “public policy” under California law (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167, 170 (Cal. 1980)).
Elements of a Wrongful Discharge Claim
To succeed, an employee must prove:
That an employment relationship existed between the parties.
That the employer discharged the employee.
That the employee’s protected conduct (e.g., refusing to break the law, reporting violations, etc.) was a substantial motivating reason for the discharge (Garcia-Brower v. Premier Automotive Imports of CA, LLC, 55 Cal.App.5th 961, 973 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020); Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp., 219 Cal.App.4th 466, 479 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013)).
That the employee was harmed by the discharge.
That the discharge was a substantial factor in causing the employee’s harm (Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 (Cal. 2013)); Garcia-Brower, 55 Cal.App.5th at 973.
What Is a Violation of Public Policy?
A public policy supporting a wrongful discharge must:
Be established by statute or constitutional provision (Stevenson v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 880, 889-90 (Cal. 1997)).
Benefit the public, not just the individual employee (Diego v. Pilgrim United Church of Christ, 231 Cal.App.4th 913, 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)).
Be articulated at the time of discharge and be fundamental and substantial (Stevenson, 16 Cal.4th at 889-90).
Common examples: refusing to violate the law, reporting unlawful activity (“whistleblowing”), exercising statutory rights, or performing a statutory duty (Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090-91, overruled on other grounds by Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., 19 Cal.4th 66, 80 n.6 (Cal. 1998)).
Causation and Harm
To establish liability, the employee must show that the violation of public policy was a “substantial motivating reason” for the discharge, not just a minor or tangential factor (Alamo, 219 Cal.App.4th at 479; Harris, 56 Cal.4th at 232). The discharge must also be a substantial factor in causing the harm the employee suffered.
Practical Steps for Employers
Know the Law: Regularly review federal and California statutes or regulations affecting workplace rights.
Document Reasons for Discharge: Always document legitimate, lawful reasons for any termination.
Train Managers: Ensure those making termination decisions are familiar with what constitutes protected conduct under California law.
Respond Promptly to Employee Complaints: Address safety concerns, legal compliance questions, or reports of illegal activity fully and fairly.
Consult Legal Counsel: For any discharge involving potential legal rights or protected activities, review the situation with employment counsel before acting.
Citations:
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 27 Cal.3d 167, 170 (Cal. 1980); Garcia-Brower v. Premier Automotive Imports of CA, LLC, 55 Cal.App.5th 961, 973 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020); Alamo v. Practice Management Information Corp., 219 Cal.App.4th 466, 479 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013); Harris v. City of Santa Monica, 56 Cal.4th 203, 232 (Cal. 2013); Stevenson v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.4th 880, 889-90 (Cal. 1997); Diego v. Pilgrim United Church of Christ, 231 Cal.App.4th 913, 926 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014); Gantt v. Sentry Insurance, 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1090-91 (Cal. 1992), overruled on other grounds by Green v. Ralee Engineering Co., 19 Cal.4th 66, 80 n.6 (Cal. 1998); CACI No. 2430.
