Defending California employers against wrongful-termination claims.

California's at-will doctrine, in practice

California is at-will. The doctrine sounds simple — employers can terminate any employee for any reason or no reason. The reality is that the at-will doctrine has more exceptions than rule. Each exception is a wrongful-termination theory California plaintiffs use regularly:

Public-policy violations. Termination for refusing to violate the law, for performing a legal obligation, for exercising a constitutional right, or for reporting a violation of public policy. The Tameny tort. Strict liability essentially — a public-policy termination is wrongful regardless of the employer's good-faith belief.

FEHA discrimination. Termination because of a protected characteristic — race, sex, age (40+), disability, pregnancy, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, ancestry, marital status, military status, genetic information. The most common wrongful-termination theory in California.

FEHA retaliation. Termination in retaliation for protected activity — filing a complaint, participating in an investigation, requesting accommodation, taking protected leave. Often paired with the underlying discrimination claim.

Cal Lab Code §1102.5 retaliation. Whistleblower retaliation — termination for reporting a violation of state or federal law. The §1102.5 standard is broader than federal whistleblower protection and frequently combined with public-policy theories.

Breach of implied contract. When the employer's policies, course of dealing, or specific representations create an implied contract that termination would only be for cause. Long tenure, consistent positive reviews, specific assurances of continued employment can all support implied-contract claims.

Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Where an implied contract exists, California recognizes a covenant of good faith. Termination motivated by bad faith (denying earned commissions, terminating to avoid bonus payment, terminating after manufacturing pretextual cause) can breach the covenant.

Defense strategy by phase

Pre-answer assessment

Before the answer is filed, we evaluate the complaint against each theory pleaded. What's the documentation? Is there a non-pretextual basis for the termination? Are the procedural defenses (statute-of-limitations, exhaustion of administrative remedies through DFEH/EEOC, notice requirements) viable?

Pleadings and initial motion practice

Where pleading defects exist, demurrer or motion to dismiss is the right opening move. Many wrongful-termination complaints have at least one cause of action that doesn't survive a pleading challenge. Reducing the surviving theories early simplifies the rest of the matter.

Discovery

Targeted discovery focused on (a) establishing the legitimate, non-pretextual basis for the termination, (b) testing the plaintiff's claimed damages, and (c) developing defenses that summary judgment can leverage. Defense discovery isn't a fishing expedition.

Summary judgment

Wrongful-termination claims often turn on whether the employer's stated basis was pretextual. If the documentation supports the legitimate basis and the plaintiff can't produce evidence of pretext, summary judgment is the right vehicle to end the matter.

Trial prep and trial

If the matter reaches trial, the trial-prep phase covers pretrial motions, witness preparation, exhibit lists, jury instructions, trial brief. The trial phase covers the trial itself. Each phase scoped and quoted before it starts.

When settlement makes sense

Defense math doesn't always favor litigation through trial. A wrongful-termination matter with $80,000 of plausible damages and $120,000 of defense cost-through-trial may favor a $40,000 early settlement. We surface that math at the assessment phase rather than after a year of motion practice.

Phase pricing makes the cost-benefit conversation transparent. Each phase fee is known before authorization; settlement at any transition point is a defensible choice.