102 | 2025 Cal-Peculiarities ©2025 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com claiming in good faith (even if mistakenly) entitlement to overtime premium pay,176 refusing to submit to a random drug test, in violation of constitutional privacy provisions that apply to private as well as public employers,177 refusing to enroll in an inpatient alcohol rehabilitation program,178 resisting sexual harassment that violates constitutional provisions forbidding sex discrimination by private and public employers,179 hiring a lawyer to negotiate conditions of employment,180 appearing on a radio show to support a political candidate in a local election and to criticize a Member of Congress for supporting the candidate’s opponent,181 taking leave under the California Family Rights Act,182 or discussing with co-workers the fairness of the employer’s bonus system.183 Reporting a suspected violation of law. California employees can sue for breach of public policy when fired or demoted for reporting an alleged violation of a health and safety statute,184 reporting a death threat by a co-worker,185 raising reasonable suspicions of company practices violating federal safety regulations,186 investigating and reporting suspected unlawful acts,187 reporting violations of federal immigration law,188 protesting the employer’s refusal to provide reimbursement for mileage,189 protesting an unlawful deduction from a paycheck,190 or notifying the Board of Equalization and the employer’s general counsel of a belief that the employer was not complying with California sales and use tax law, even though the employee was unable to use employer tax returns to prove a tax violation.191 California law protects employees even from preemptive retaliation, where an employer takes adverse action against them in anticipation of their reporting unlawful workplace conduct.192 The Court of Appeal extended this principle in favor of an employee who sued for breach of public policy on a theory that the employer constructively discharged her because she was a potential witness in a claim for sexual harassment: “Employer retaliation against employees who are believed to be prospective complainants or witnesses for complainants undermines this legislative purpose just as effectively as retaliation after the filing of a complaint. To limit FEHA in such a way would be to condone ‘an absurd result’ … that is contrary to legislative intent.”193 Related discussions appear in sections on employee whistleblowing (§ 3.5) and FEHA retaliation (§ 6.11).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4