Wrongful termination
Terminations that violate FEHA, Tameny public policy, or a job-security promise.
Westview Law PC represents Los Angeles County employees in wrongful termination, harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and wage-and-hour claims under California and federal law.
Reviewed by David M. Safvati, Esq., California State Bar #326605 (verify) · Attorney Advertising
Westview Law PC handles employment cases for workers throughout Los Angeles County, including downtown LA, the San Fernando Valley, the Westside, the South Bay, and the Antelope Valley. Initial consultations are confidential. Most plaintiff-side employment matters are handled on a contingency-fee basis, meaning the client pays no attorney fee unless there is a recovery.
Los Angeles County employs more than four million people across entertainment, aerospace, healthcare, finance, ports and logistics, and the on-demand economy. Each of those sectors carries its own pattern of workplace misconduct. Production assistants on a Burbank set face different problems than warehouse pickers at the Port of Long Beach or registered nurses at a Cedars-Sinai facility. What unites them is California law, which gives employees some of the strongest workplace protections in the country.
The core California anti-discrimination and anti-harassment statute is the Fair Employment and Housing Act, codified at Government Code sections 12900 through 12996. Section 12940 lists the practices a covered employer cannot lawfully engage in, including discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on race, sex, age, disability, pregnancy, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, and other protected categories. See Gov. Code §12940. Federal law, principally Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, runs in parallel, and an LA worker can usually pursue both tracks at once.
Westview Law PC is an employee-side California firm. The attorneys represent workers, not management. The pages on this site explain how Westview handles intake, agency filings with the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), pre-suit demand letters, written discovery, depositions, motion practice, mediation, and trial in the Los Angeles County Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
California employment is presumptively at-will under Labor Code §2922, which means an employer can end the relationship for any reason that is not unlawful. The list of unlawful reasons is long, and that is where most employment claims live.
State law reaches employers with five or more workers; Title VII applies only at fifteen, and FEHA defines disability more broadly. City ordinances add a layer enforced by the Office of Wage Standards: a higher minimum wage, at least 48 hours of paid sick leave a year, and fair-chance hiring, which bars employers with 10 or more workers in the city from asking about criminal history before a conditional offer. The County's Fair Chance Ordinance, in effect since September 3, 2024, also covers firings based on a criminal record in unincorporated areas.
Circumstantial discrimination cases follow McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 and Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317. First the worker makes a basic showing. Next the employer gives its reason. Then the worker proves that reason false. Most discovery targets the last step: how comparable coworkers were handled, explanations that shift over time, and policies bent for one person.
| Claim | Filing window | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| CRD complaint under FEHA | Three years after the last violation | Gov. Code §12960(e) |
| EEOC charge: Title VII, ADA, ADEA | 300 days (California has a partner agency) | 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(e)(1) |
| Lawsuit after a CRD right-to-sue | One year from the notice | Gov. Code §12965 |
| Firing against public policy (Tameny) | Two years | Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167; CCP §335.1 |
| Unpaid wages (Labor Code) | Three years, or four through the unfair competition law | Lab. Code §1194; B&P §17208 |
Terminations that violate FEHA, Tameny public policy, or a job-security promise.
Harassment based on a protected trait. Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264 marks where writers'-room talk ends and harassment begins.
Payback for complaints, accommodation requests, or whistleblowing under Lab. Code §1102.5, or for using city wage and scheduling rights.
Refusals to discuss or provide a reasonable accommodation under Gov. Code §12940(m), (n).
Pregnancy disability leave, accommodation, and reinstatement under Gov. Code §12945.
Race-linked discipline, pay gaps, and passed-over promotions, plus hairstyle bias the CROWN Act prohibits.
Quid pro quo and hostile-environment claims. The employer is strictly liable for a supervisor's harassment.
Workers 40 and over pushed out through layoffs, reorganizations, or forced retirement, under FEHA and the ADEA.
Accent and language rules, threats about immigration status, and abuse of work-authorization documents.
Denied time off for holy days, and dress or grooming codes that ignore religious practice.
Pay gaps by sex, race, or ethnicity for substantially similar work, under Lab. Code §1197.5.
The city minimum wage is $18.42 an hour as of July 1, 2026; unincorporated county areas pay $18.47. Also misclassification under Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 and AB 5, and Brinker break claims.
A termination, or a forced resignation (constructive discharge), where the stated reason is pretext under McDonnell Douglas.
Harassment severe or pervasive enough to change the job itself. See Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121.
A decision-maker trades job benefits, a role, or shifts for sexual favors.
No good-faith interactive process, or no reasonable accommodation, for a disability or a religious need.
Lost shifts, demotion, suspension, or termination after a complaint or whistleblower report.
Unpaid overtime, off-the-clock work, missing meal premiums, and expense reimbursement for phones, mileage, and gear owed under Lab. Code §2802.
Gig drivers, warehouse staff, and crew labeled contractors despite the ABC test under Dynamex and AB 5.
More than 8 hours a day or 40 a week earns time-and-a-half, and more than 12 in a day earns double time, under Lab. Code §510.
Blocking or penalizing CFRA, FMLA, or pregnancy disability leave, or, at large city retailers, ignoring Fair Work Week's 14-day schedule notice.
The entity that employs you, from a studio to the City or County of Los Angeles, is the main defendant on FEHA and Title VII claims.
Supervisors who harass are personally liable under Gov. Code §12940(j)(3).
Managers can be sued for their own harassment and for aiding and abetting retaliation.
An HR team that approves, hides, or never investigates a complaint helps prove the employer's liability.
The employer answers for coworker harassment it knew or should have known about and failed to stop.
Agencies that supply temps to warehouses, studios, and offices can share employer liability when they control pay, hiring, or conditions.
A client company and a staffing or payroll firm can both count as employers if each controls how the work is done.
Buyers of a business can take on its employment claims when the operation continues and they had notice.
Pay and benefits lost through judgment, plus future losses if returning isn't workable. For crew and freelancers, lost bookings can count too.
Damages for distress and humiliation. Punitive damages need malice, oppression, or fraud by a managing agent (Civ. Code §3294) and cannot be awarded against the City or County (Gov. Code §818).
A prevailing FEHA plaintiff can recover reasonable attorney's fees under Gov. Code §12965(c), and unpaid minimum wages carry liquidated damages (Lab. Code §1194.2).
Specific past results in employment matters are confidential and discussed in consultation. Westview's publicly verified flagship outcomes across the firm's California trial practice include the following.
See the full firm record for additional outcomes.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case depends on its specific facts.
Westview Law PC is based in Los Angeles at 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90067. That office is the firm's only physical location, and it is where intake, depositions, and client meetings take place. Our work in the city of Los Angeles runs through the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse and the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. Call (310) 906-4862 for a free, confidential case review.
What Los Angeles looks like for us in practice. The entertainment and creative industries produce a steady stream of FEHA harassment and retaliation matters, often with NDA enforcement questions under Code Civ. Proc. §1001 (Silenced No More Act). Healthcare retaliation under Health & Safety Code §1278.5 also runs through the LA hospitals. The Stanley Mosk Courthouse is at 111 North Hill Street with limited on-site parking; nearby Disney Hall and Music Center structures absorb overflow. Westview Law's office at 1880 Century Park East is roughly 12 miles from the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
An attorney's view of the Los Angeles mix. In our practice at the Century City office, the most common claims handled out of LA Superior Court are FEHA retaliation and wrongful-termination matters in entertainment, professional services, and healthcare. We regularly file at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse and at the federal Roybal building. What LA clients often misunderstand is that Title VII has a shorter statutory damages cap than FEHA, which is uncapped, so the framing of a parallel federal claim is a strategic choice rather than a default.
Where federal and state enforcement sits. Federal claims under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA are administered by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and California state-law claims under FEHA, the Labor Code, and the Cal-WARN Act run through the California Civil Rights Department and the California Labor Commissioner, with the California Attorney General's office taking some pattern-and-practice and PAGA-related matters. Civil filings for Los Angeles County residents proceed at the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse.
Most FEHA, Tameny, and Labor Code civil actions for LA County employees are filed at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse at 111 North Hill Street, downtown Los Angeles. Complex employment cases are sometimes routed to the Spring Street Courthouse at 312 North Spring Street. Departments rotate, and case assignment follows the Local Rules of the LA Superior Court.
The CRD Los Angeles District Office sits at 320 West 4th Street, Suite 1000, Los Angeles. CRD intake interviews are now conducted online and by phone, with limited in-person availability. The CRD investigates, mediates, and where appropriate issues a right-to-sue letter that opens the civil-court path.
Title VII, ADA, ADEA, FMLA, and related federal claims are filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The downtown LA federal courthouses are the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building at 255 East Temple Street and the First Street U.S. Courthouse at 350 West First Street.
Westview's LA caseload reflects the County's employment mix. Entertainment-industry harassment cases often involve production crew on short-term call sheets, where supervisor turnover and contractor status complicate liability. Aerospace and defense employees in Palmdale, El Segundo, and Long Beach raise security-clearance retaliation and whistleblower claims under Lab. Code §1102.5. Healthcare workers, including registered nurses and medical residents, often pursue patient-safety retaliation claims. Gig-economy and warehouse workers raise misclassification claims under Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 and AB 5, plus meal and rest violations under Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004.
FEHA, Title VII, and Labor Code claims all run on different clocks. The conservative reading is the earliest deadline that applies to your facts. Westview Law PC offers confidential consultations to Los Angeles County employees.
A general-practice attorney is fine for a quick look at a severance agreement. A disputed FEHA claim needs CRD procedure, deposition work, expert disclosures, and a plan for summary judgment at Stanley Mosk. An employment-focused firm is set up for that work.
You can file with the CRD or EEOC yourself. Wage claims go to the Labor Commissioner's Los Angeles office at 320 West 4th Street, Suite 450, the same building as the CRD. City minimum wage, sick leave, and Fair Work Week complaints go to the Office of Wage Standards. A missed deadline can end a claim, and Westview's intake is free and confidential.
Big national firms often represent employers, and that can keep them from taking a case against an LA studio, hospital, or retailer. A California plaintiff-side firm has no such conflict.
Westview Law PC handles most plaintiff-side employment matters on a contingency-fee basis. That means the client pays no attorney fee unless there is a recovery, and the firm advances most case costs. The contingency percentage is set out in a written fee agreement that the client reviews before signing. FEHA also shifts attorney's fees to the employer when the employee prevails under Gov. Code §12965(c). Fee-shifting often drives settlement, because the employer's exposure includes both the underlying damages and the cost of the employee's legal work.
The California Civil Rights Department is the state agency that administers FEHA. A worker must file an administrative charge with the CRD (or dual-file with the EEOC) before suing under FEHA. The CRD investigates and can mediate, and it issues a right-to-sue letter that opens the civil-court window. A direct-filing option also exists, where the CRD issues an immediate right-to-sue notice without investigating. The strategic choice between immediate suit and full agency investigation depends on the facts, the employer's posture, and the documentary record.
The deadline depends on the legal theory. A FEHA discrimination, harassment, or retaliation charge with the CRD must be filed within three years of the last unlawful act under Gov. Code §12960(e). A Title VII or ADA charge with the EEOC must be filed within 300 days of the act in California. A Tameny wrongful-termination tort claim is generally subject to a two-year statute under CCP §335.1. Labor Code wage claims run on a three-year clock, extended to four years if pleaded as an unfair competition violation under Business and Professions Code §17208.
No. A current employee can file a CRD charge while still employed. FEHA prohibits retaliation against an employee who files or participates in a charge under Gov. Code §12940(h). Constructive discharge is a separate doctrine that applies where working conditions are so intolerable a reasonable person would resign. See Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238. Most workers stay employed while a claim is pending. The decision is fact-specific and worth discussing with counsel before acting.
Yes, for harassment claims. FEHA imposes personal liability on individual supervisors and co-workers who engage in harassment under Gov. Code §12940(j)(3). Discrimination and retaliation claims, by contrast, run against the employer entity and not the individual supervisor. The harassment-versus-discrimination distinction matters at the pleading stage, because the wrong defendants on the wrong claims can be dismissed. Westview pleads each theory against each proper defendant.
Direct evidence is rare. Most FEHA and Title VII cases turn on circumstantial evidence: comparators (similarly situated employees outside the protected class treated more favorably), shifting explanations (the employer's stated reason changes), deviations from written policy (the employer applied a rule differently to the employee), and timing (an adverse action close in time to protected activity). Personnel-file documents under Lab. Code §1198.5, payroll records under §226, emails, Slack messages, performance-review history, and HR investigation notes are common evidence sources.
No. FEHA prohibits retaliation against an employee who files or participates in a CRD charge, opposes a discriminatory practice, or requests an accommodation. See Gov. Code §12940(h). Retaliation is its own cause of action, separate from the underlying discrimination claim, and it carries its own damages exposure. A retaliation claim sometimes outlasts the underlying claim, because the retaliation timeline starts at the adverse action, not the original protected activity.
A release signed at termination is not always enforceable. California requires consideration beyond what the employee was already owed, clear language, and (for ADEA waivers) compliance with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act including a 21-day review window and a 7-day revocation window. California has also restricted no-rehire clauses under Code of Civil Procedure §1002.5 and limited non-disparagement language. An attorney should review a release before signing or, if already signed, evaluate whether it covers the claims at issue.
Most CRD investigations close within 12 to 18 months of filing. Cases that proceed to civil court typically take 18 to 36 months from complaint filing through trial in the LA Superior Court, though the actual schedule depends on the assigned department, discovery disputes, and whether mediation succeeds. Title VII cases in the Central District of California often move faster on a federal scheduling order. Settlement timing varies. Some matters resolve at the CRD mediation stage, others at private mediation after discovery, and a minority go to verdict.
Short-term and freelance status does not automatically disqualify a worker from FEHA protection. Whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor turns on the ABC test under Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 and AB 5. Many production roles fail the B prong because the work is within the usual course of the production company's business. Misclassification by itself is not the claim, but it is often the gateway to FEHA, wage-and-hour, and CFRA protections that the employer assumed did not apply.
Federal contractors are still subject to FEHA, Title VII, and the Labor Code as to their California workforce. Federal employees, by contrast, have a different complaint path through the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and agency EEO counselors, with a 45-day initial counseling window. The two tracks are not the same, and a worker who has been told to use the federal EEO process should confirm whether that path is mandatory or whether state-law options remain.
Most cases resolve without a trial. The typical sequence is administrative filing, investigation, civil complaint, discovery, mediation, and settlement. Cases that do not resolve at mediation can proceed to a jury trial in the LA Superior Court or the Central District of California. The client makes the decision to settle or proceed at every stage. Westview prepares each case as if it will be tried, because employers settle most aggressively against firms that have shown they will take a case to verdict.
This page was reviewed by David M. Safvati, California Bar #326605, a Westview Law PC attorney whose practice focuses on plaintiff-side employment litigation in Los Angeles County and statewide. David M. Safvati handles FEHA discrimination, harassment, and retaliation matters in the LA Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California, including cases against entertainment-industry production companies, aerospace contractors, healthcare systems, and logistics employers.
David M. Safvati earned a J.D. from Loyola Law School and was admitted to the California Bar in 2019. Bar admissions include the State Bar of California, the United States District Court for the Central District of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. David M. Safvati is a member of the California Employment Lawyers Association and the Los Angeles County Bar Association Labor and Employment Section.
Verify California Bar status at apps.calbar.ca.gov/attorney/Licensee/Detail/326605.
David M. Safvati
Founding Partner
Paul S. Marks
Of Counsel
Taylor Markey
Of Counsel
Meet the Team →
40+ Years Combined Experience
Top 100 Verdict in California (2024). A real trial law firm that fights for results.
Schedule a Consultation →
Free Case Evaluation
Our California attorneys offer free, confidential consultations.
Get a Free Evaluation →
We Prepare Every Case for Trial
That’s why insurance companies take us seriously — we prepare every case for trial.
View All Results →
Serving Employees Across California
Wherever you work in California, our attorneys can take your case.
Get a Free Evaluation →
Not Sure Where You Stand?
A free consultation is the fastest way to understand your options.
Talk to an Attorney →