Effective October 1, 2025, the California Civil Rights Council finalized regulations making clear that the use of artificial intelligence and automated decision systems in employment is subject to the same anti-discrimination protections that have governed human decision-making for decades under FEHA. If an AI tool produces discriminatory outcomes based on race, gender, age, disability, or any other protected characteristic, the employer is liable — even if the employer did not intend to discriminate and even if a third-party vendor built the tool.

The Nourmand Law Firm, APC represents California employees who have experienced employment discrimination through hiring algorithms, automated performance evaluations, and AI-driven termination decisions. If you believe an employer’s use of technology played a role in denying you a job, a promotion, or your continued employment, call 800-700-WAGE for a free consultation.

What Qualifies as an Automated Decision System Under California Law?

An automated decision system (ADS) under the updated FEHA regulations is any computational process — including artificial intelligence, machine learning, algorithms, or statistical modeling — that makes or assists in making decisions about job applicants or employees. The definition is deliberately broad.

Common examples of automated decision systems used in California workplaces include resume-screening software that filters applicants based on keyword matches or predictive scoring, video interview platforms that analyze speech patterns and facial expressions, scheduling algorithms that assign shifts or determine availability, performance-tracking tools that generate productivity scores in warehouses and distribution centers, and workforce reduction models that rank employees for layoff eligibility.

Basic office software such as email, spreadsheets, and word processors does not fall within the definition. But any tool that evaluates, scores, ranks, or recommends employment actions crosses the threshold — and subjects the employer to FEHA liability if the results discriminate against protected groups.

How Can AI Tools Discriminate Against California Workers?

AI systems learn from historical data. When that data reflects decades of biased hiring patterns, pay disparities, or discriminatory promotion practices, the algorithm reproduces those patterns at scale — often without anyone recognizing the bias until the damage is done.

A resume-screening tool trained on a company’s past hiring data might systematically downrank applicants with names associated with certain racial or ethnic backgrounds. An interview-scoring platform could penalize candidates with speech patterns linked to a disability or non-native English proficiency, which implicates both disability discrimination and national origin discrimination under Government Code § 12940.

Performance-monitoring algorithms in warehouses throughout Riverside, San Bernardino, and Stockton may impose productivity quotas that fail to account for workers who need reasonable accommodations under FEHA. When a worker with a disability or a medical condition cannot meet an algorithm’s threshold, and the employer terminates that worker based on the automated score, the result is unlawful discrimination — regardless of whether a human manager pressed the final button.

Lawsuits filed in 2025 and early 2026 have alleged that major AI hiring platforms generate opaque scores excluding older workers and perpetuating racial bias, with the logic behind those decisions hidden from both the affected workers and regulators.

What Does California Law Require of Employers Who Use AI in Employment Decisions?

The updated FEHA regulations impose several concrete obligations on employers using automated decision systems:

Anti-bias testing. Employers should conduct bias audits of their AI tools before and after adoption. Courts will evaluate the quality, scope, recency, and results of any testing — and whether the employer acted on findings that revealed discriminatory patterns. One-time vendor assurances or outdated audits will carry little weight in a discrimination claim.

Record retention. Employers must preserve all ADS-related data for at least four years, including the input data, scoring criteria, output rankings, and results of any bias testing. This expanded retention period — doubled from the previous two-year requirement — gives workers and their attorneys a longer window to obtain evidence supporting discrimination claims.

Vendor accountability. An employer cannot escape liability by pointing to a third-party vendor. Under the regulations, anyone acting on behalf of the employer to perform a FEHA-regulated activity — including recruitment, screening, or promotion decisions conducted through an automated system — is considered the employer’s agent. If the vendor’s tool discriminates, the employer is responsible.

Reasonable accommodation obligations. Employers must consider whether an applicant or employee needs a reasonable accommodation when an ADS is part of the screening or evaluation process. A chatbot interview that cannot accommodate a hearing-impaired applicant, or a timed assessment that disadvantages a worker with a cognitive disability, may violate FEHA’s interactive process requirements.

What Rights Do California Workers Have When AI Is Used Against Them?

Workers subjected to adverse employment actions driven by automated decision systems have the same rights as workers harmed by human decision-makers. Under Government Code § 12940, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual because of a protected characteristic — and the method of discrimination does not change the analysis. An algorithm that produces a discriminatory outcome violates the statute just as a biased manager would.

California workers can file complaints with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), which has enforcement authority over FEHA violations including those arising from AI-driven discrimination. Workers may also pursue private lawsuits seeking damages for lost wages, emotional distress, and — in egregious cases — punitive damages.

One of the most significant challenges for workers in AI discrimination cases is transparency. Many automated systems operate as opaque processes where the scoring criteria, weighting factors, and training data are hidden from the people whose careers depend on them. The four-year record-retention requirement under the new regulations gives workers and their legal counsel a stronger foundation to demand discovery of ADS data in litigation.

Workers in industries that rely heavily on algorithmic management — including logistics, warehousing, healthcare staffing, gig platforms, and food service — should pay particular attention to these protections. Employees in Bakersfield, Fontana, Long Beach, Oakland, and throughout the Central Valley and Inland Empire work in sectors where automated scheduling, productivity tracking, and workforce reduction tools are already widespread.

What Should You Do If You Suspect AI-Driven Discrimination?

Document everything you can about the decision that affected your employment. If you were denied a job, ask the employer whether automated tools were used in the screening process. If you were terminated or disciplined based on a performance score, request information about how that score was calculated and what data was used.

Under the updated FEHA regulations, applicants and employees should receive notice explaining when and how automated decision systems are being used in employment decisions. If your employer failed to provide that notice, that failure itself may support a discrimination claim.

Keep records of your qualifications, performance history, and any communications suggesting that the employer’s stated reason for the adverse action does not hold up. If the timing of the decision aligns with a request for accommodation, a pregnancy disclosure, a complaint about harassment, or any other protected activity, that pattern may indicate that the automated system served as a pretext for unlawful retaliation.

Hold Employers Accountable for Algorithmic Discrimination

The Nourmand Law Firm, APC has fought for the rights of California employees for more than two decades, recovering millions of dollars in discrimination, wrongful termination, and wage theft cases across the state. Whether a biased manager or a biased algorithm caused the harm, the legal protections are the same — and so is the firm’s commitment to holding employers accountable. Call 800-700-WAGE or contact us online for a free, confidential consultation. Se Habla Español.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the defendant hired the plaintiff as a full-time dentist but she was later terminated. Nearly two years after her termination, the plaintiff sued the former employer alleging several causes of action. The complaint detailed that the plaintiff had previously sued another company for wrongful termination and retaliation. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant began a covert harassment campaign to interfere with her lawsuit against the other company. As a result of the stress from the alleged harassment, she began seeing a psychiatrist and was diagnosed with delusional disorder. Her accommodation request due to her disability was ultimately denied, and her employment was terminated. The defendant cited performance and behavioral issues as reasons for the termination, countering the plaintiff’s claim of pretext.

After discovery was complete, the employer asked the court to resolve the case without trial. The plaintiff represented herself without an attorney and opposed the summary disposition, but failed to present admissible evidence. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, finding no triable issues. The plaintiff’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied, and she filed a notice of appeal in March 2023.

On appeal, the plaintiff represented herself without an attorney. She argued that it was inappropriate for the trial court to issue a summary judgment in the defendant’s favor. The court ultimately rejected all of the plaintiff’s general arguments, focusing on the fact that her appellate brief was not sufficient, and her proposed evidence was not admissible. Because the plaintiff failed to meet the procedural burden to dispute the trial court’s ruling, her appeal was denied. This case demonstrates the importance of following procedural rules when making an employment law claim. Because the plaintiff was not able to meet the requirements without an attorney, her arguments were not addressed.

California Employment Lawyers Who Will Stand Behind Your Claims

If you or a loved one has been harassed or discriminated against at work, it can be a difficult task to have your voice heard and fight for your rights. State and federal employment laws can be complicated and appear contradictory, and the procedural requirements for making a claim are not always clear-cut. If you have an issue, the experienced California employment law attorneys with the Nourmand Law Firm can help. Our experienced lawyers understand what needs to be done to pursue a successful claim for compensation. We take cases on a contingency basis, meaning if we don’t collect a judgment, you don’t need to pay our fees. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.

Facts of the Case

Plaintiff began working for Cedars in 2000. Throughout her tenure, she worked in an administrative role with no patient care responsibilities. In 2007, the plaintiff was diagnosed with stage III colorectal cancer. The treatment was effective to rid her of cancer but left her with lingering side effects. These included unspecified allergies, a weakened immune system, and neuropathy—damage to the nerves resulting in an ongoing “tingling sensation” in her fingers and toes. None of these side effects limited her ability to perform her job functions, and she successfully returned to work for Cedars in 2009.

Cedars operates a non-profit academic medical center in Los Angeles. In 2017, Cedars announced a new flu vaccine policy. The policy required all employees, regardless of their role, to be vaccinated by the beginning of the flu season. The policy was implemented to limit employee transmission of the flu. The policy was aligned with recommendations by the United States Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The CDC defines health care workers in its guidance to include “persons (e.g., clerical, dietary, housekeeping, laundry, security, maintenance, administrative, billing, and volunteers) not directly involved in patient care but potentially exposed to infectious agents that can be transmitted to and from health care workers and patients.” The Cedars policy made exceptions only for employees establishing “a valid medical or religious exemption.” Employees seeking medical exemptions were required to submit an exemption request form completed by their physician for review by Cedars’s internal “Exemption Review Panel.”

Following the implementation of the flu vaccine policy, the plaintiff expressed her reluctance to get the vaccine. Subsequently, she made an appointment with her physician. She told him that she feared the side effects of the vaccine and he completed her exemption form. The plaintiff submitted the form to Cedars and it was rejected. None of the reasons provided by her physician were CDC-listed medical exemptions. After the panel rejected the plaintiff’s exemption form, she was terminated after refusing to get the vaccine, even after her physician recommended that she receive it. The plaintiff sued Cedars in January 2018. At trial, Cedars moved for summary judgement, and the court granted the motion.

The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that she was (1) there was direct evidence of a prohibitive motive in her termination, (2) that she was discriminated against due to mental and physical disability, and (3) that the flu vaccine was a pretext to discriminate against her. The appellate court disputed her first claim, stating that while the plaintiff characterized the policy as forcing her termination, she was not incapable of getting the vaccine. Further, the court found that the plaintiff’s second claim did not have merit. The court stated that there was no triable issue of fact as to physical disability discrimination based on the plaintiff’s description of her circumstances. Finally, they disagreed with her third claim, finding no pretext by Cedars. The appellate court affirmed the lower court decision, upholding the summary judgment ruling.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

Do you have claims against your employer but worry you signed away your right to sue or don’t have a strong enough case? Your claims may still be valid. Contact a California employment lawyer to discuss your situation. The attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will review every possible avenue for recovery. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

Facts of the Case

St. Cecilia is a Catholic elementary school in Los Angeles offering a faith-based education for children from kindergarten to eighth grade. The plaintiff was employed by St. Cecilia for roughly 40 years from 1978 to 2018. She began working at the school as a part-time secretary and office administrator. The plaintiff’s job duties included answering phones, filing, photocopying, maintaining records, processing registrations, parent communications, and ensuring that the office ran smoothly. She maintained that role until her termination at the end of the 2017-2018 academic year. In 1999, the plaintiff began working as a part-time art teacher at St. Cecilia in addition to her office administrative duties. As an art teacher, she taught studio art and art history to students and occasionally served as a substitute teacher for other subjects from time to time. Throughout her time as an employee, the plaintiff was the school’s only art teacher.

In 2017, a new, younger employee, was hired to work in the school office to do administrative tasks. The plaintiff trained the new employee. In the summer of 2018, a new principal arrived at St. Cecilia. The principal subsequently decided to eliminate the fine arts teaching position, eliminating the plaintiff’s role. They did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to return to administrative work in the front office. Following her termination, the plaintiff filed a suit contending that she was wrongfully terminated by St. Cecilia for age discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. At trial, the trial court granted St. Cecilia summary judgment after St. Cecilia argued that the plaintiff’s claim for age discrimination was barred by the ministerial exception as undisputed evidence showed that in her role as an art teacher, she failed to fulfill her responsibility of educating her students in the Catholic faith.

more The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to St. Cecilia on the basis of the ministerial exception. Specifically, she argued that St. Cecilia waived the ministerial exception by failing to raise it initially as an affirmative defense in its answer. Additionally, she argued that she was not subject to the exception due to her secular role as an art teacher and office administrator. The appellate court opinion agreed in part and disputed in part the plaintiff’s appeal. The appeals court found that St. Cecilia did not in fact waive the ministerial exception as a defense; however, the school was not entitled to summary judgment due to the triable issues of material fact as to whether the exception applied to the art teacher and office administrator positions. As a result, the judgment was reversed and remanded to the trial court, with the motion for summary judgment denied.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

Do you have claims against your employer but worry you signed away your right to sue or don’t have a strong enough case? Your claims may still be valid. Contact a California employment lawyer to discuss your situation. The attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will review every possible avenue for recovery. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

Facts of the Case

Phonexa sued the former employee in August of 2020, alleging that her relationship with senior management at the company deteriorated after she took two days off of work starting on July 20, 2020, and copied the hard drive of her work computer onto a series of personal drives. Phonexa alleges that she copied the electronic materials at the direction of an executive at a competing company in order to steal Phonexa’s trade secrets. The former employee filed a cross-complaint asserting multiple employment claims, including that Phonexa’s chief executive officer (CEO) questioned and interrogated employees who were working from home and made statements that COVID-19 was a hoax and an attempt to disrupt the 2020 presidential election, among other claims. When the former employee shared concerns regarding the return to work policy with human resources in May 2020, the CEO demanded the complaining employees’ names and threatened retaliation.

The former employee worked from home for the duration of her time at Phonexa after advising them that she suffers from a preexisting medical condition that required her to be cautious about contracting COVID-19. Despite this, the CEO asked her numerous times when she planned to work from the office. During a phone call on July 20, 2020, the CEO berated and belittled her, and two days after the call when she submitted a formal written complaint about the company policy, the former employee was terminated.

The Court’s Decision

The appeals court opinion addresses Phonexa’s anti-SLAPP motion, stating that litigation of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-step process. (1) The moving defendant bears the burden of establishing the challenged allegations or claims arising from protected activity in which the defendant has engaged, and (2), for each claim that does arise from protected activity, the plaintiff must show the claim has at least minimal merit. If the plaintiff cannot make this showing, the court will strike the claim.” Here, the appellate court establishes that the employee’s lawsuit does not seek any recovery predicated in whole or part on Phonexa’s lawsuit and that her claims do not arise from the CEO’s statements regarding the public response to COVID-19. As a result, the order denying Phonexa’s special motion to strike is affirmed.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

Do you have claims against your employer but worry you signed away your right to sue or don’t have a strong enough case? Your claims may still be valid. Contact a California employment lawyer to discuss your situation. The attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will review every possible avenue for recovery. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

Facts of the Case

In July 2017, the employee exhausted his administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment Housing alleging that Airborne terminated his employment because of his age and because of his mental disability, resulting from the enormous stress from the hostile work environment. He further alleged in that complaint that during the time he was employed by Airborne he received excellent performance evaluations and maintained a great work record. After being terminated, the person that replaced him was younger and had significantly less experience.

The following year in July 2018, the employee filed a complaint against Airborne and specific individual defendants, making claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, defamation, harassment, retaliation, disability discrimination, race discrimination, age discrimination, marital status discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In August 2019, after several amendments, the employee filed a third amended complaint. In December 2020, Airborne filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, for summary adjudication. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that Airborne produced evidence showing, inter alia, the decision to terminate Forrester’s employment was based on a report of inappropriate conduct, and thus was made for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. The burden then shifted to the employee, but he failed to meet his burden as he did not present evidence. He then appealed the decision in a timely manner.

The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the employee raised a number of issues, including a harassment claim, an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, a claim that the trial court erred by striking portions of his complaint, a claim that the trial court erred in the handling of certain discovery issues, a claim that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment due to procedural and evidentiary errors, and several other motions dismissed by the appellate court. On each claim, the appellate court affirmed the trial court decision, firmly rejecting each claim advanced by the employee.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

Do you have claims against your employer but worry you signed away your right to sue or don’t have a strong enough case? Your claims may still be valid. Contact a California employment lawyer to discuss your situation. The attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will review every possible avenue for recovery. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

Facts of the Case

As an employee of FlashCo, the plaintiff was hired in 2010 as a production worker. In March 2016, the plaintiff was then hired as a plant manager. During the trial, the plaintiff’s former supervisor testified that the plaintiff was “over his head” in the plant manager role, stating that he never developed into a competent plant manager. According to further testimony from the trial, the plaintiff’s supervisors stated that in 2016 and 2017, the plant managed by the plaintiff was not reaching production levels expected of a plant of that level. In February 2018, the plaintiff experienced neck and back injuries in an outside automobile accident. By April 2018, the plaintiff was advised that “the sales team was concerned about [his] plant performance” and around that time, he was sent a performance improvement plan (PIP). The plaintiff felt that the PIP set unrealistic expectations. Later that day, the plaintiff had a discussion with his manager and was given three options, (1) abide by the PIP, (2) accept a demotion to operations supervisor, or (3) voluntarily resign and receive a $10,000 payment from the company.

The plaintiff resigned and accepted the payment several days later. In March 2020, the plaintiff commenced his action by filing a complaint against the defendant, setting forth nine total causes of action, with six addressing violations of the FEHA, two addressing violations of the CFRA, one for interference, one for retaliation, and one addressing violations of public policy. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims on a motion for summary judgment from the defendant.

The Court’s Decision

The appeals court opinion addresses the trial court decision, affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the matter back to the trial court. Regarding the plaintiff’s FEHA claims, the appellate court found that he failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendant knew of his disability, affirming the lower court decision. On the CFRA and wrongful termination issue, the appellate court found that the trial court erred by determining that the plaintiff was required to show that the defendant knew he was disabled. As a result, on those issues, the appellate court decision reversed the trial court’s judgment in part, remanding the matter back to the trial court to address the issue further.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

Do you have claims against your employer but worry you signed away your right to sue or don’t have a strong enough case? Your claims may still be valid. Contact a California employment lawyer to discuss your situation. The attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will review every possible avenue for recovery. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was employed as a nurse in the defendant’s hospital in California. The employee claimed that the defendant was discriminating against her due to a disability and failing to provide accommodations for her disability in violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. The employee underwent carpal tunnel surgery and was placed on modified duty and took several leaves of absence for surgery and recovery. The employee alleged her supervisors passed her over for a promotion after these absences, promoting a less-qualified nurse in her place.

The employee was then transferred to another hospital, where a disputed incident led to the employee failing her probationary period at that hospital. At this point, she attempted to transfer back but was allegedly falsely told her position had been filled. She then took a leave of absence due to severe stress from her unstable work status. She returned to work at the original hospital, where new supervisors were in place. The employee accused these supervisors of forcing her to undergo evaluations of competency by unqualified employees, later firing her because of these sham evaluations. Upon her return, her pay was also reduced and her work schedule was changed. After termination, the employee filed suit, alleging discrimination, failure to follow certain administrative procedures, retaliation, and wrongful termination.

The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appealed.

The Court’s Decision

The appellate court agreed with the trial court in many respects. First, the court held that the employee failed to exhaust many of her administrative claims before bringing suit. As such, the court only addressed the employee’s claims arising out of the evaluations and subsequent termination. As to those claims, the court said that the plaintiff failed to show she was terminated due to discriminatory reasons because the plaintiff performed unauthorized work at another medical facility while on medical leave and did not show that other nurses also did similar unauthorized work without being terminated. In addition, the court found that the employers presented a valid and lawful reason for terminating the plaintiff. The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, dismissing the case and the plaintiff’s claims.

Do You Need a California Employment Law Attorney?

Don’t make the same mistakes this plaintiff made. Contact a California employment law firm with experience in disability discrimination claims. The attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm will fight for you every step of the process. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call us today at 310-553-3600.

According to the facts in the opinion, the plaintiff was working as a nurse and was terminated in 2017 after almost 20 years of employment. In her complaint, the plaintiff described her work in patient care and listed the dates during which she began taking medical leave for an undisclosed illness. The medical leave started in 2015 and occurred sporadically through early 2017.

In January 2017, the plaintiff received what is called a “Corrective Action Level 4 write-up,” which included allegations and complaints against the plaintiff dating back to 2015. Two weeks later, she was suspended, and three months after the suspension, her employment was terminated. The plaintiff argued in her complaint that her disability and time on medical leave were substantial motivating factors for the termination and that if it had not been for her disability, she would not have been fired. The lower court denied the plaintiff’s request for relief, and she promptly appealed.

On appeal, the higher court took into consideration the complaints listed against the plaintiff in her employer’s reports. According to the employer, the plaintiff had made significant mistakes in communicating with both staff members and patients. For example, when one patient reported that he was suicidal, the plaintiff failed to notify medical personnel that there was an urgent issue in the patient’s medical records.

When considering the mistakes described by the employer alongside the plaintiff’s allegations of discrimination, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not met her burden of showing that her disability was a substantial motivating factor in the termination. Despite the fact that the plaintiff was fired soon after she began taking medical leave, said the court, the timeline of the events was not enough to support a claim of discrimination.

Putting significant weight into the employer’s allegations, the court denied the defendant’s appeal. The lower court’s original verdict was thus affirmed.

Retaining Your California Employment Law Attorney

If you have faced or are facing discrimination in the workplace, you may have a claim for relief. In order to put the strongest possible case forward, the best thing you can do for your case is to hire a qualified, hardworking California employment law attorney that can advise you on possible strategies and help you choose what works best for you. At the Nourmand Law firm, we are standing by and ready to speak with you in a free, no-obligation phone consultation. Give us a call today at 310-553-3600.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the plaintiff was offered an executive position with the defendant, a software company, in May 2015. While the defendant conducted business in California, the position offered to the plaintiff required relocation to Singapore. The plaintiff accepted the offer and relocation package on May 22, 2015. The offer contained provisions detailing the circumstances under which the plaintiff’s employment could be terminated.

Nearly one year after the plaintiff accepted the offer and moved to Singapore to assume the new position, his employment was terminated. The defendant notified the plaintiff of the termination one month before his departure, and otherwise complied with the conditions in the employment contract/relocation agreement. The letter notifying the plaintiff of his termination did not note any cause or reason for the decision. The plaintiff filed multiple claims against the defendant in California court, alleging that the defendant committed fraud in misrepresenting the details surrounding the job and relocation prior to the plaintiff’s acceptance of the offer. Additionally, the plaintiff alleged that he was unlawfully terminated in violation of state law and his employment contract.

The plaintiff’s fraud claims have already been heard in a jury trial, and he was awarded nearly $500,000 in damages based on the defendant’s misrepresentations and the plaintiff’s reliance on them. The unlawful termination case was dismissed by the trial court before trial, as the employment contract appeared to allow for termination without cause, so long as adequate notice was given. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his employment law claims to the California Court of Appeal, where the lower ruling was upheld. According to the appellate opinion, the employment contract was clear and unambiguous that the plaintiff could be terminated without cause. Based on the recent appellate ruling, the plaintiff will be unable to collect any compensation for his wrongful termination claim.

There May Be Multiple Avenues for Relief from Employer Mistreatment

California workers who have been mistreated or misled by an employer often know that they should be entitled to some compensation, but the method of obtaining such compensation is not always clear. Both federal and state laws allow for employers to seek compensation for mistreatment, and within each legal framework, there are various methods to seek relief. With the help of a qualified California employment law attorney, wronged workers can seek damages through all the potential avenues of relief. If you or a loved one is considering a breach of contract, wrongful termination, discrimination, retaliation, or another employment-related claim against a current or former employer, the qualified California employment lawyers at the Nourmand Law Firm want to hear about your case. An easy and free consultation with one of our employment attorneys can help you decide if you have a claim worth pursuing. If you choose to retain us to assist with your claim, we will work tirelessly to get you the compensation that you deserve. For a free, no-obligation consultation with a California employment law attorney, call 310-553-3600 today.

An NLRB administrative judge found that the termination was in retaliation for the employee engaging in union activities. Further, the judge ruled that the company engaged in employment law violations when it issued warnings to another worker for sending screenshots and sending them to the employee. Finally, the board ruled that Tesla’s confidentiality agreement contains an illegal provision that prohibits employees from speaking with the media without the company’s permission. The NLRB ruling requires Tesla to amend the provision in their confidentiality documents. Tesla has not issued a comment on the recent Board findings.

Certain federal and state laws protect California employees in organizing and joining a union. Unions are a critical way for employees to ensure that their employer negotiates in good faith over terms and conditions of employment, including work hours, and compensation. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects certain California employees from engaging in unionizing activities. Some protected activities include allowing employees to self-organize, form, join, or assist labor organizations, engage in collective bargaining agreements, and other related activities.

Although the NLRA makes it illegal for a California employer to retaliate against an employee based on their union activity, it is a practice that continues to occur. Retaliation takes many forms, including threatening employees with a loss of job or benefits, threatening to close the company or facility, questioning employees about their union support, promising benefits to employees who discourage union participation, and terminating employees or making their positions more difficult.

Most employers are well-versed in the law and find ways to engage in illegal conduct by purporting valid reasons for the adverse employment action. An experienced attorney can help employees assert their claims by proving causation through direct evidence or inference.

Have You Suffered An Adverse Employment Action by Your California Employer?

If you believe your employer is unlawfully retaliating against you, contact the experienced California employment law attorneys at The Nourmand Law Firm. The attorneys at our law firm work on behalf of workers statewide. We have dedicated our practice to protecting California employees and ensuring that our clients can fully and readily assert their employment rights. Our practice handles California class-action lawsuits, defamation, discrimination and harassment, retaliation, wage and hour violations, and wrongful termination. Through our representation, our clients have received back pay, reinstatement, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Contact our office at 800-700-WAGE to discuss your rights and remedies against your unlawful employer.