Employment
Retaliation
An employer taking adverse action against an employee because of protected activity, such as complaining about discrimination or reporting a violation of law.
What it is
Retaliation is punishment for protected activity. It is often the strongest claim in a California employment case, because it can succeed even when the underlying complaint of discrimination or wrongdoing does not.
The rules
Under FEHA, it is unlawful to discharge, expel or otherwise discriminate against a person for opposing FEHA-prohibited practices or participating in a proceeding (Government Code section 12940(h)), and the usual CRD exhaustion and right-to-sue deadlines apply. Under Labor Code section 1102.5, an employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing a reasonably believed violation of law, and is liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per employee for each violation, awarded to the employee. Labor Code section 1102.6 sets the burden for 1102.5 claims: once the employee shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the protected activity was a contributing factor, the employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence it would have acted the same way for legitimate, independent reasons. The California Supreme Court confirmed that framework in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703. Labor Code section 98.6 separately bars retaliation for Labor Code complaints.
Why it matters to a plaintiff firm
Retaliation is proved with a timeline: protected activity, the employer's knowledge, then adverse actions and how soon they followed. Firms build that timeline from documents early and choose the theory, FEHA, 1102.5 or both, with its burden and deadlines in mind. See the retaliation timeline guide.
Sources
General information about California and federal rules, not legal advice. Rules change and every case turns on its facts: check the statute and your own analysis before relying on a date or a figure.