Wrongful termination
Firing in violation of FEHA, public policy under Tameny, or an enforceable written or implied agreement.
Westview Law PC represents Orange 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 represents workers across Orange County, including Santa Ana, Irvine, Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Tustin, Garden Grove, and Fullerton. 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.
Orange County's workforce of roughly 1.6 million people splits across distinct economies. Irvine and the South County tech corridor draws software engineers, product managers, and biotech researchers. Anaheim's tourism and hospitality sector employs hotel staff, theme-park workers, and food-service teams. Hoag and UCI Health anchor a healthcare cluster that runs from Newport Beach through Costa Mesa. Manufacturing in Brea, Buena Park, and Stanton rounds out the County's employment base. Each sector produces its own pattern of workplace problems, and California law applies the same statutory framework to all of them.
The Fair Employment and Housing Act, codified at Government Code sections 12900 through 12996, is the central California anti-discrimination and anti-harassment statute. Section 12940 lists the prohibited practices, 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 runs in parallel through Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and the FMLA, and an OC employee can usually pursue both state and federal tracks.
Westview Law PC is an employee-side California firm. The attorneys represent workers, not management. This page explains 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 Orange County Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division.
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 claims arise.
FEHA applies to most California employers with five or more employees, and to harassment claims against any employer regardless of size. Title VII applies to employers with fifteen or more employees. The substantive prohibitions overlap, but FEHA defines disability more broadly and offers a longer agency-filing window. Where the facts support dual filing, Westview preserves both state and federal claims.
Disparate-treatment cases under FEHA and Title VII run on the McDonnell Douglas framework. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792; Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317. The employee carries the initial burden of a prima facie case. The employer then articulates a non-discriminatory reason. The employee shows pretext. Discovery often turns on the second and third steps: comparator evidence, shifting explanations, deviations from written policy.
| Claim | Filing window | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| FEHA charge with CRD | 3 years from last unlawful act | Gov. Code §12960(e) |
| Title VII / ADA / ADEA charge with EEOC | 300 days in CA (state has equivalent agency) | 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(e)(1) |
| FEHA civil action after right-to-sue | 1 year from CRD right-to-sue notice | Gov. Code §12965 |
| Wrongful termination in violation of public policy | 2 years | Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167; CCP §335.1 |
| Wage claims under the Labor Code | 3 years (4 under unfair competition theory) | Lab. Code §1194; B&P §17208 |
Firing in violation of FEHA, public policy under Tameny, or an enforceable written or implied agreement.
Severe or pervasive conduct based on a protected class. See Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264.
Adverse action after a protected complaint, accommodation request, or whistleblower disclosure under Lab. Code §1102.5.
Failure to engage in the interactive process or denial of reasonable accommodation under Gov. Code §12940(m), (n).
PDLL leave, accommodation, and protected status under Gov. Code §12945.
Disparate treatment, disparate impact, and the CROWN Act protections for natural hair.
Hostile environment and quid pro quo, including supervisor strict-liability principles under FEHA.
FEHA and ADEA protection for workers 40 and older, including reductions-in-force and forced retirement.
Accent, English-only rules, immigration-status pretext, and document-abuse claims.
Failure to accommodate Sabbath observance, religious dress, grooming, and prayer practices.
California Equal Pay Act claims under Lab. Code §1197.5 for substantially similar work.
Misclassification under Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 and AB 5; meal and rest periods under Brinker.
Termination where protected-class evidence shows the stated reason is pretext under McDonnell Douglas.
Severe or pervasive conduct that alters the conditions of employment. See Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121.
Tangible job benefits conditioned on submitting to sexual demands by a supervisor or decision-maker.
Refusal to engage in the interactive process or grant a reasonable accommodation for disability, pregnancy, or religion.
Demotion, suspension, schedule manipulation, or termination after a complaint or whistleblower report.
Unpaid overtime, off-the-clock work, missing meal premiums, and unreimbursed business expenses under Lab. Code §2802.
Treating a worker as an independent contractor when the ABC test under Dynamex and AB 5 says otherwise.
Daily overtime past eight hours, weekly past forty, and double-time past twelve under Lab. Code §510.
Interference with CFRA, FMLA, or PDLL leave entitlements, or retaliation tied to a leave request.
The direct employer is the primary defendant in FEHA discrimination claims and Title VII actions.
Individual liability attaches to supervisors for harassment under Gov. Code §12940(j)(3).
Personal liability for harassment, plus aiding-and-abetting exposure for participating in retaliation.
Where HR ratifies, conceals, or fails to investigate a complaint, that conduct can support employer liability.
Employer liability for co-worker harassment requires knowledge, actual or constructive, and a failure to take corrective action.
Temp and staffing agencies can be liable as employers when they control hiring, firing, pay, or worksite conditions.
Two entities can share employer status under FEHA where each exercises control over terms and conditions of employment.
Asset purchasers can inherit employment liabilities where there is continuity of operations and notice of the claim.
Lost wages from the date of the adverse action through judgment, plus projected future losses where reinstatement is not feasible.
Non-economic damages for harm to dignity and well-being. Punitive damages where the employer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud under Civ. Code §3294.
FEHA shifts fees to the employer when the employee prevails under Gov. Code §12965(c). Fee-shifting changes the economics of litigation against well-funded employers.
Westview Law PC publishes only outcomes that are objectively verifiable through court records or recognized industry recognition. Specific past results in a given practice area are confidential and discussed during a consultation when relevant to the facts. The following recoveries reflect the firm's trial track record across practice areas.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Each case depends on its specific facts. See case results for the full firm record.
Westview Law PC has one office, at 1880 Century Park East, Suite 1100, Los Angeles, CA 90067. The firm does not maintain a separate location in Orange County, and we want clients to have that fact in front of them before they call. What the firm does have is a California bar license that covers every county in the state, and a regular practice in Orange County matters filed at the Orange County Superior Court, Central Justice Center (700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701) and in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division (Ronald Reagan Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 411 West 4th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92701). Initial consultations are conducted by phone or video, and in-person meetings happen at the Century City office or at a Orange County-area location when the case requires it. Call (310) 906-4862 to start a case review.
What Orange County looks like for us in practice. The hospitality sector along the Disneyland corridor produces wage-and-hour matters tied to tipped employees, scheduling, and meal-period compliance. Healthcare retaliation matters under Health & Safety Code §1278.5 run through the Hoag and Kaiser systems. Tech and biotech employers in Irvine generate trade-secret and noncompete crossover claims (California's noncompete ban under Bus. & Prof. Code §16600 is relevant when an out-of-state parent tries to enforce a noncompete here). The Central Justice Center has dedicated visitor parking; the Reagan federal courthouse shares a structure with the State of California building.
An attorney's view of the Orange County mix. In our practice in Orange County, the most frequent matter is wrongful termination after a disability-accommodation request, often in the Irvine tech and biotech corridor. We also see a steady stream of hospitality wage-and-hour claims out of the resort district. What OC clients often misunderstand is that California's noncompete law (Bus. & Prof. Code §16600) is one of the strongest pro-employee statutes in the country, and many out-of-state employers carry their home-state restrictions into California contracts even though those clauses are unenforceable here.
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 Orange County residents proceed at the Orange County Superior Court, Central Justice Center.
Most FEHA, Tameny, and Labor Code civil actions for OC employees are filed at the Central Justice Center, 700 Civic Center Drive West, in Santa Ana. The Central Justice Center handles civil unlimited matters. Complex employment cases are sometimes routed to the dedicated complex civil program. Departments and direct calendaring follow the Local Rules of the Orange County Superior Court.
The CRD Santa Ana office sits at 2218 West First Street, 4th Floor, Santa Ana. 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 for OC-based plaintiffs are filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, which sits at the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and United States Courthouse at 411 West Fourth Street in Santa Ana.
Westview's OC caseload reflects the County's employment mix. Pregnancy discrimination and accommodation cases come out of the Irvine tech corridor, where employees often discover after a leave request that their projects have been reassigned and their reviews downgraded. See Gov. Code §12945; Sanchez v. Swissport, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1331 (interactive-process duty applies to pregnancy disability). Healthcare retaliation cases involve nurses and clinical staff at Hoag, UCI Health, and the Children's Hospital of Orange County, often invoking Lab. Code §1102.5 and Health and Safety Code §1278.5 (patient-safety whistleblower protection). Hospitality cases out of Anaheim, including theme-park and hotel workers, often combine harassment claims with wage-and-hour theories under Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004. Manufacturing in north OC produces classic disability-discrimination and English-only-rule cases.
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 Orange County employees.
A general-practice attorney can handle a straightforward separation-agreement review. For a contested FEHA matter with discovery, expert disclosures, and a likely deposition fight, an employment-focused firm is usually better suited. The CRD process, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting, and the FEHA fee-shifting rules reward repeat practice.
An employee can file a CRD or EEOC charge without an attorney. Some matters resolve through agency mediation without further action. The risk of going alone is the timeline pressure: missed deadlines for an opposition declaration or a right-to-sue election can end a claim. Westview's intake is free and confidential, so a conversation costs nothing.
Large multi-state firms can have employment-defense conflicts that prevent representation of an OC employee. A California-only plaintiff-side firm avoids that exposure.
Westview Law PC handles most plaintiff-side employment matters on a contingency-fee basis. 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 maintains a Santa Ana office at 2218 West First Street, 4th Floor. Most CRD intake interviews are now handled online or by phone, but the Santa Ana office is the regional point of contact for OC residents. A worker can also file with the federal EEOC, which has a Los Angeles District Office that covers Orange County for federal claims.
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 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 B&P §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 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.
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.
The facts suggest a possible pregnancy-discrimination claim under Gov. Code §12945 and a parallel federal claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k). Timing is one of the strongest circumstantial-evidence categories in disparate-treatment law. The first steps are preserving documents (offer letter, performance reviews, the email or Slack thread where the pregnancy was disclosed, the termination email), requesting the personnel file under Lab. Code §1198.5, and filing a CRD charge to start the administrative clock. A free consultation can tell you whether the timeline and documents support a claim.
Two California statutes commonly apply. Lab. Code §1102.5 protects employees who disclose a reasonable belief of legal violation to a government agency, a supervisor with authority to investigate, or any public body. Health and Safety Code §1278.5 specifically protects healthcare workers who advocate for patient care or report unsafe conditions. Hospital retaliation cases often combine §1102.5, §1278.5, and FEHA where the retaliation is also discriminatory. Document the report and the adverse action timing.
Yes. FEHA covers most employers with five or more employees, and harassment claims apply regardless of employer size. Hospitality workers in Anaheim have brought successful claims for sexual harassment, racial harassment, denied accommodations for disability and pregnancy, and retaliation for participating in union or wage complaints. Wage-and-hour claims for meal and rest period violations under Brinker are common in the hotel and theme-park sectors because of long shifts and tight scheduling.
A release signed at termination is not always enforceable. California requires consideration beyond what the employee was already owed and clear language. ADEA waivers must comply with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, which sets a 21-day review window and a 7-day revocation window. California has also restricted no-rehire clauses under CCP §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 Orange County 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, Southern Division often move faster on a federal scheduling order. Settlement timing varies.
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 Orange County Superior Court or the Central District of California, Southern Division. 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 Orange County and statewide. David M. Safvati handles FEHA discrimination, harassment, and retaliation matters in the Orange County Superior Court and the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division, including cases against Irvine technology employers, Anaheim hospitality operators, healthcare systems, and north-OC manufacturers.
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 Orange 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, and that’s how we maximize your recovery.
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 →