Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Attorney

While it is true that California is an "at will" employment State, meaning an employer can let you go for any lawful reason, or no reason at all, there are many, many important exceptions to the so-called "at will" rule. Indeed, some might say that the exceptions swallow the rule. That is where the concept of "wrongful termination" enters the picture.

For example, an exception to the at will rule is that your employer can’t fire you for an illegal reason. There are both federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination against people because of their race, gender and other things they can’t change. Religious beliefs, nation of origin, race and in some places sexual orientation, as in California, are protected characteristics in this category.

Contact a Los Angeles Wrongful Termination Attorney Today!

Contact an experienced Los Angeles wrongful termination attorney at The Rubin Law Corporation to discuss your situation. Losing one’s job is usually a very upsetting and emotional experience. But remember that just because you were terminated, it isn’t necessarily illegal. For example, it is probably legal to fire an employee just because you don’t like his or her personality.

Steven M. Rubin represents employees exclusively, not employers. He has been involved in bringing a leading workplace wage and hour case before the California Supreme Court. As a Los Angeles wrongful termination attorney, he has successfully handled hundreds of severance negotiations, and regularly litigates cases into substantial cash award settlements for his clients, often early enough in the process so that the benefits are enjoyed without the uncertainty and anxiety that accompany years of trial and appellate litigation. Above all, he has shown a special aptitude for creatively and effectively bringing employers to the table to engage in the early negotiation of disputes.

Wrongful Termination in California

California recognizes that in general, all employment contracts are at-will terminable. However, there are exceptions to this by both state and federal statute as well as violations of public policy. In order to establish a wrongful termination claim in California, the plaintiff must prove:

• The existence of an employer-employee relationship
• Plaintiff employee was terminated by employer (or other adverse employment action)
• The termination was a violation of public policy
• The termination legally caused plaintiff's damages
• Damages exist

Contact a Los Angeles wrongful termination lawyer at The Rubin Law Corporation at 310.598.2416/866.936.3162 to speak to a skilled wrongful termination attorney about your employment law and labor law concerns. At our Beverly Hills law office, we provide Spanish language services and use the latest technology to keep up-to-date on every case.

Tameny/Violation of Public Policy Claims

In California, a wrongful termination claim can be made if an employer, in firing an employee, violates public policy. This is known as a "Tameny" action. Examples of Tameny actions in California where the court found there to be a violation of public policy include:

• Firing an employee who had signed a non-competition agreement with former employer (violates public policy of favoring open competition and employee mobility)

• Firing an employee for refusing to sign a release document, releasing the employer from liability for future fraud and intentional acts)

• Firing an employee for refusing to take a random drug test (this is split in case authority)

•  Jury duty: Lab.C. § 230(a) prohibits discrimination or discharge based on an employee's performing jury service (after reasonable notice to the employer). [See Gantt v. Sentry Ins. (1992) 1 C4th 1083, 1091, 4 CR2d 874, 878, fn. 4]

• Testimony: Lab.C. § 230(b) prohibits discrimination or discharge based on an employee's taking time off (after reasonable notice to the employer) to appear in court as a witness: "Responding to a subpoena and giving truthful testimony when called to testify are unarguably fundamental and substantial policies designed to benefit the public as a whole ... " [Deschene v. Pinole

• Point Steel Co. (1999) 76 CA4th 33, 43, 90 CR2d 15, 22]

• Domestic violence complaint: Lab.C. § 230(d) prohibits discrimination against a domestic violence victim who takes time off to seek judicial relief. Unless reasonable notice is given in advance, the employee must, within a reasonable time after the court appearance, provide the employer with certification (in the form of a police report, court order, documentation from medical professional, etc.). [See Lab.C. § 230(d)]

• Similarly, Lab.C. § 230.1 prohibits employers of 25 or more persons from discriminating against domestic violence victims who take time off to seek medical attention, obtain services of a domestic violence program or psychological counseling, or participate in safety planning. The same notice or certification to the employer is required. [See Lab.C. § 230.1(b)]

• Workplace safety complaint: Lab.C. § 6310(b) prohibits discrimination or discharge for complaining about unsafe work conditions or practices. [See Daly v. Exxon Corp. (1997) 55 CA4th 39, 43-44, 63 CR2d 727, 729 (discussed at ¶ 5:27); Freund v. Nycomed Amersham (9th Cir. 2003) 347 F3d 752, 759 (applying Calif. law)-"The public policy behind § 6310 is not merely

• A. Wrongful Discharge In Violation Of Public Policy (..., Cal. Prac. Guide...© 2012 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 16 to aid the reporting of actual safety violations ... it is also to prevent retaliation against those who in good faith report working conditions they believe to be unsafe"; Lujan v. Minagar (2004) 124 CA4th 1040, 1046, 21 CR3d 861, 866-includes preemptive retaliation against employees whom employer fears will file workplace safety complaints]

• Whistleblowing: Lab.C. § 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against employees for disclosing an employer's violation of state or federal regulations to a governmental agency. [See Green v. Ralee Eng. Co. (1998) 19 C4th 66, 76-77, 78 CR2d 16, 22]

• Disclosing wages: Lab.C. § 232(c) prohibits disciplining or discharging an employee for disclosing the amount of his or her wages. [Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc. (2002) 99 CA4th 1361, 1376, 122 CR2d 204, 217]

• Disclosing working conditions: Lab.C. § 232.5 prohibits disciplining or discharging an employee for disclosing information about the employer's working conditions. It has been conceded that this statute states a sufficient public policy on which to base a wrongful termination claim. [Luke v. Collotype Labels USA, Inc. (2008) 159 CA4th 1463, 1468-1469, 72 CR3d 440, 443 (discussing whether claim preempted by NLRA); see ¶ 15:221 ff.]

Whistleblower and Retaliation Claims

If you informed someone outside the company that illegal acts were being committed by the company, and were fired in retaliation, this may constitute wrongful termination. You had a right, and probably should “blow the whistle ” to stop harmful activities. If you were fired in retaliation for attempting to organize the workforce for collective bargaining, the firing is probably illegal.

Contact Us Today

Contact The Rubin Law Corporation by e-mailing us or calling 310.598.2416 to speak with a Los Angeles wrongful termination lawyer.

Hablamos español. Se puede visitar nuestro Centro Hispánico.