Wrongful Termination Defense

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.

Defend Against Wrongful Termination Claims

Michael Trust Law, APC defends California employers facing wrongful termination claims. We build the documentation and process discipline that make a termination decision defensible under California law.

Wrongful Termination

California is an at-will employment state, but at-will status is a defense, not a shield — a termination that violates public policy, FEHA, or an implied-contract right can still be wrongful termination. Employer liability turns heavily on the documentation and process discipline built before the termination decision is
made.

This HR background often proves relevant to termination defense, where a documented, consistently applied decision-making process is typically what separates a defensible termination from an actionable one.

California Wrongful Termination Defense — Employer Counsel

At-will employment lets an employer end the relationship without cause, but not for an unlawful reason. A termination is wrongful if the real reason violates a fundamental public policy (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167), discriminates or retaliates in violation of FEHA (Cal. Gov. Code §12940), or breaches an enforceable or implied-contract right (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654). Defending a termination decision starts long before litigation, with the documented, contemporaneous record that explains why the decision was made.

How Effective Termination Defense Works

The strongest defense to a wrongful termination claim is a decision-making record built before the claim arises: performance documentation that predates any protected activity, consistent application of policy across comparable employees, and a decision-maker who can show the actual reason for the termination. FEHA claims apply a mixed-motive standard — if a protected characteristic was a substantial motivating factor in the decision, the employer can be liable even where legitimate reasons also existed, though damages and remedies may be limited where the employer proves it would have made the same decision anyway for lawful reasons (Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203). Employers should also be alert to constructive discharge exposure — working conditions made so intolerable that a resignation is treated as a termination (Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238) — since a resignation does not by itself foreclose liability. Where the termination involves FEHA-protected discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy doctrine does not bar a related civil tort claim such as intentional infliction of emotional distress (Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75) — termination defense should account for that exposure, not just the underlying FEHA claim.

When to Contact Us

A termination decision that has already been made benefits from a pre-implementation review, and a termination decision still under consideration benefits even more from review beforehand. Contact Michael Trust Law, APC.

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

Cal. Gov. Code §12940 et seq. (FEHA); Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167; Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654; Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238; Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203; Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75

Explore Related Employer Services

Browse all California employment law topics

Frequently Asked Questions

Possibly, if the documentation doesn’t predate the complaint. Under Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, FEHA liability can attach if a protected characteristic or protected activity was a substantial motivating factor, even alongside a legitimate reason. Performance documentation created before the protected activity is typically what supports the legitimate-reason defense; documentation created only after is harder to rely on.

Yes, in some circumstances. Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238 allows a resignation to be treated as a constructive discharge where working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign. A resignation does not automatically foreclose a wrongful termination claim.

No. Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75 holds that FEHA-protected discrimination, harassment, or retaliation steps outside the risks inherent in employment, so the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy doctrine does not bar a related civil tort claim such as intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Build the documentary record first. Performance issues documented contemporaneously, consistent application of policy to comparable employees, and a decision-maker who can articulate the actual reason for the decision are typically what determine whether a termination is defensible when challenged under Tameny, FEHA, or an implied-contract theory.