Retaliation

Michael Trust founded Michael Trust Law, APC after more than 35 years in HR leadership across entertainment, healthcare, higher education, finance, banking, solar energy, and other industries, including managing approximately 35,000 disability and leave-of-absence cases. He holds the SPHR, PHRca, and SHRM-SCP credentials. The PHRca is a California-specific HR credential focused on California employment law and HR practice. According to HRCI’s published pass-rate statistics at https://www.hrci.org/pass-rates, the PHRca has the lowest pass rate of all HRCI credentials — 47% as of December 31, 2025, compared with 71–84% for HRCI’s other certifications — and only 293 candidates worldwide tested for it in 2025. That HR-systems background helps identify HR process issues early, which can shape legal analysis on both sides.

Employee Retaliation

Michael Trust Law, APC represents employees punished for asserting their workplace rights. California law prohibits retaliation against workers who report discrimination, harassment, wage violations, or other unlawful practices. We fight to protect your voice and secure justice.

California has several overlapping retaliation statutes covering different protected activities. The general whistleblower statute (Cal. Lab. Code §1102.5), FEHA retaliation (Gov. Code §12940(h)), and Labor Commissioner retaliation (Cal. Lab. Code §98.6) each have their own framework and statute of limitations.

This HR background often proves relevant to retaliation analysis, where timing, documentation, and the consistency of comparator treatment usually drive the outcome.

California Retaliation — Employee Rights

California has several overlapping retaliation statutes, and which one applies depends on what the employee did before the adverse action. The three most commonly invoked are Cal. Lab. Code §1102.5 (for reporting suspected violations of law), Cal. Gov. Code §12940(h) (FEHA retaliation for opposing discrimination or harassment, or participating in an investigation), and Cal. Lab. Code §98.6 (retaliation for filing complaints with the Labor Commissioner or exercising other Labor Code rights).

What Counts as Retaliation

The protected activity is the trigger, and it can be a formal complaint to a government agency, an internal report to HR or management, or even a refusal to participate in unlawful conduct. The adverse action does not have to be termination — it can be demotion, undesirable reassignment, hours reduction, exclusion from meetings, or any change in conditions that would deter a reasonable employee from engaging in the protected activity (Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028). Whether a particular adverse action is causally linked to the protected activity is fact-specific and turns on timing, documentation, and the employer’s stated reasons. Federal Title VII applies a broader adverse-action standard under Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006) 548 U.S. 53, which asks whether the action would dissuade a reasonable worker from making a charge of discrimination. California’s Yanowitz materiality standard is narrower and has been applied consistently in subsequent decisions, including Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75. The scope of protected activity is also bounded: complaints that are too vague or conclusory to put an employer on notice of unlawful discrimination do not qualify as protected opposing activity (Wawrzenski v. United Airlines, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 663). At the same time, an employee’s belief that the underlying law was being violated need only be objectively reasonable — it need not be legally correct — and an honest mistake about the law does not defeat protection (Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1251).

When to Contact Us

Retaliation claims often have shorter deadlines than the underlying complaint, and the causal connection is strongest when the adverse action follows quickly after the protected activity. Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a 30-minute conversation.

Initial contact does not create an attorney-client relationship — see Disclaimers.

Cal. Lab. Code §1102.5 (general whistleblower); Cal. Lab. Code §98.6 (Labor Commissioner retaliation); Cal. Gov. Code §12940(h) (FEHA retaliation); Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028; Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006) 548 U.S. 53; Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75; Wawrzenski v. United Airlines, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 663; Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1251

A representative retaliation scenario involves an employee who reports a workplace safety concern, wage violation, or discrimination complaint and then experiences adverse action — termination, demotion, schedule changes, exclusion from key meetings, or transfer to less desirable duties. Under Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, the adverse action need not be a termination, but it must materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Yanowitz rejected the broader ‘deterrence’ standard used in federal Title VII retaliation cases (compare Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White (2006) 548 U.S. 53). Timing between the protected activity and the adverse action is typically a central evidentiary question.

Explore Related Employee Services

Browse all California employment law topics

Frequently Asked Questions

Possibly. Under Yanowitz v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1028, an adverse action need not be a termination but must materially affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment. Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75 has applied the same materiality standard. Exclusion from key meetings and removal from a major project can satisfy materiality depending on the practical impact.

It depends on how specific the complaint was. Wawrzenski v. United Airlines, Inc. (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 663 holds that a complaint must oppose conduct the employee reasonably believes is unlawful and must put the employer on notice — generalized personal grievances or vague or conclusory remarks do not satisfy the protected-activity element. A formal filing is not required, but the substance of the complaint matters.

Not if your belief was objectively reasonable. Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc. (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1251 holds that an employee’s belief that a violation of law occurred need only be objectively reasonable — it does not need to be legally correct — and an honest, reasonable mistake about the underlying law does not defeat protection under Cal. Lab. Code §1102.5(b).

Deadlines depend on the statute under which the retaliation claim is brought (FEHA, Cal. Lab. Code §1102.5, Cal. Lab. Code §98.6, Cal. Lab. Code §6310, or others), and administrative exhaustion may be required before a civil action. Several of the statutes have short administrative-filing windows. Consult counsel promptly after the adverse action.

Michael Trust Law, APC stands with employees punished for asserting workplace rights. We fight to restore fairness, recover damages, and hold employers accountable under California law.

Contact Michael Trust Law, APC Today