Wrongful Termination

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 Wrongful Termination

Michael Trust Law, APC represents employees who have been unlawfully fired. California law protects workers against terminations based on discrimination, retaliation, or violations of public policy. We fight to restore your rights and recover damages.

Wrongful Termination

California is an at-will state, but at-will employment does not allow termination for unlawful reasons. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Tameny), discriminatory termination under FEHA, and retaliatory termination remain actionable.

This HR background often proves relevant to termination decisions, where the documentary record and process discipline typically determine whether a termination is defensible or actionable.

California Wrongful Termination — Employee Rights

California is an at-will employment state, which means an employer may end the employment relationship without showing cause. But “at-will” is the starting point, not the end of the analysis. A termination is wrongful if the actual reason violates a fundamental public policy, discriminates on the basis of a protected characteristic under FEHA, retaliates for a protected activity, or breaches an enforceable employment contract or implied-contract right (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654).

Public Policy Wrongful Termination

Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167 established that a termination is wrongful in violation of public policy if it occurs because the employee refused to violate a statute, performed a statutory obligation, exercised a statutory right or privilege, or reported a statutory violation. Public-policy claims typically anchor in a specific statute or constitutional provision and require a tight nexus between the protected activity and the termination. Discriminatory and retaliatory terminations are governed primarily by FEHA (Cal. Gov. Code §12940). Whether a particular termination is actionable depends on the actual reason, the timing, the documentary record, and the protected activity (if any) — all fact-specific. Where a wrongful termination involves conduct that steps outside the risks inherent in the employment relationship — for example, FEHA-protected discrimination, harassment, or retaliation — the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy doctrine does not bar civil tort claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75). This is an important and often-misunderstood point: a terminated employee with FEHA-anchored claims may pursue civil IIED relief without being routed exclusively through the workers’ compensation system.

When to Contact Us

Termination claims often have short deadlines, and evidence (emails, performance reviews, witness recollection) is best preserved early. Contact Michael Trust Law, APC for a 30-minute conversation about your specific situation.

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; Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75

Explore Related Employee Services

Browse all California employment law topics

A typical wrongful termination scenario involves an employee fired shortly after engaging in protected conduct — reporting safety concerns, filing a workers’ compensation claim, refusing to participate in unlawful activity — or where an asserted business reason appears to be pretext for discrimination. California’s at-will rule does not protect terminations that violate fundamental public policy (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167) or any specific statutory protection. The closest questions are typically whether the protected activity and adverse action are connected, and whether the asserted legitimate reason is supported by the documentary record.

Frequently Asked Questions

It can be. Termination because of a workers’ compensation claim violates fundamental California public policy under the Tameny line of cases (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167). The closest question is typically whether the workers’ compensation claim was a substantial motivating reason for the termination, which is fact-specific.

Possibly, depending on the totality of the relationship. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 recognized that an implied contract limiting at-will termination can arise from the parties’ actual conduct, employer policies, oral assurances, and tenure. Each implied-contract case turns on its specific facts.

When the termination involves conduct that steps outside the risks inherent in the employment relationship — for example, FEHA-protected discrimination, harassment, or retaliation — the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy doctrine does not bar civil tort claims such as intentional infliction of emotional distress. Light v. Department of Parks & Recreation (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 75 is often misunderstood on this point: a wrongfully terminated employee with FEHA-anchored claims may pursue civil IIED relief alongside the underlying FEHA claims, not be routed exclusively through the workers’ compensation system.

Quickly. FEHA claims generally require an administrative exhaustion step through the California Civil Rights Department before a civil action, and statutory deadlines apply both to administrative filing and to any subsequent litigation. Evidence (emails, personnel files, witness recollection) is best preserved early.

Challenge Wrongful Termination

Michael Trust Law, APC stands with employees who have been unlawfully fired. We fight to restore your rights, recover damages, and hold employers accountable under California law.

Contact Michael Trust Law, APC Today