San Francisco Employment Lawyer

Under FEHA, you have three years from the last unlawful act to file a charge with the California Civil Rights Department, Gov. Code §12960(e). For Title VII claims, the EEOC deadline is 300 days in California because the state has CRD as an equivalent enforcement agency. After a right-to-sue letter issues, you have one year (CRD) or 90 days (EEOC) to file suit. Local San Francisco ordinance claims have their own deadlines, often tied to a one-year limitations period for civil enforcement. Evidence ages and witnesses leave, so the practical deadline to act is usually well before the statutory cutoff.

Yes. The City and County of San Francisco enforces several ordinances that expand on the state floor. The Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (SF Admin Code Chapter 12W) provides accrual from the first hour worked. The Fair Chance Ordinance (SF Police Code Article 49) restricts how employers consider conviction history. The Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance gives eligible employees the right to request a flexible schedule for caregiving. The Health Care Security Ordinance requires covered employers to make health-care spending on behalf of employees working in San Francisco. Each layers over FEHA and the Labor Code, not in place of them.

FEHA Gov. Code §12940(m) and ADA Title I both require an employer to engage in an interactive process when an employee asks for an accommodation related to a disability or medical condition. The employer is not required to provide your preferred accommodation, but it is required to explore options in good faith and to provide a reasonable one if it exists. Refusal to engage in the process, automatic denials, and demands for excessive medical detail can each support a claim. Scotch v. Art Inst. of Cal. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 986 outlines the interactive-process duty in California.

Lab. Code §1102.5 protects employees from retaliation after a report, whether the report goes to a supervisor, an outside agency, or a person with authority over the conduct. The statute covers reports of state, federal, and local violations. Wrongful termination in violation of public policy is a separate tort under Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, often pleaded alongside §1102.5. The remedy can include back pay, front pay, emotional distress damages, and attorney's fees. Timing matters because the statute of limitations is three years for §1102.5.

FEHA covers employers with five or more employees for most claims, and zero for harassment, which is broader than Title VII's 15-employee threshold. California recognizes individual supervisor liability for harassment, while Title VII generally does not. Damages under FEHA are uncapped, while federal compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII are subject to statutory caps tied to employer size. Aguilar v. Avis Rent A Car (1999) 21 Cal.4th 121 and Lyle v. Warner Bros. Television Prods. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 264 set out the California standard for hostile work environment claims.

For FEHA claims, you generally must file an administrative charge with the California Civil Rights Department before suing in court. CRD will either investigate or, on request, issue an immediate right-to-sue letter. Once the letter issues, you have one year to file a civil action in superior court. Filing with CRD preserves the statute of limitations and, in some cases, leads to a mediation or investigation that resolves the matter without litigation. Most employment lawyers request an immediate right-to-sue rather than wait for CRD's investigation queue, because the agency is heavily backlogged.

They can be. Unvested equity that you lost because of an unlawful termination is potentially recoverable as part of the back-pay and front-pay calculation. The recovery depends on the grant agreement, the vesting schedule, and the date of termination relative to vesting milestones. Restricted stock units, performance shares, and option grants each get treated differently. Counsel familiar with tech-sector compensation will review the grant agreement and 10b5-1 plans where relevant before calculating damages. This is an area where a generalist civil firm often undercounts the recovery.

Maybe. California uses the ABC test, codified at Lab. Code §2775, which presumes employment unless the hiring entity shows that (A) the worker is free from control, (B) the work is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and (C) the worker is engaged in an independently established trade. Several gig-economy categories were carved out by Proposition 22, but the carve-out is narrow. If you are misclassified, you may have claims for unpaid overtime, missed meal and rest breaks, expense reimbursement under Lab. Code §2802, and pay-stub penalties.

No. Gov. Code §12945 protects up to four months of pregnancy disability leave, and termination because of leave or pregnancy is unlawful under FEHA. CFRA at Gov. Code §12945.2 provides additional bonding leave for parents. Federal FMLA at 29 U.S.C. §2601 provides up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave for serious health conditions, including pregnancy-related conditions. If you were terminated, demoted, or had your role materially changed during or after pregnancy leave, the timing alone often supports a prima facie claim of discrimination or retaliation.

Constructive discharge occurs when working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable employee would feel compelled to resign. Turner v. Anheuser-Busch (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238 sets the California standard. The conduct must be more than ordinary workplace friction, and the employee must show that the employer knew or should have known about the conditions and failed to act. Constructive discharge is treated as a termination for purposes of damages, including back pay and front pay. The claim is often paired with harassment or retaliation theories rather than pleaded alone.

Anything documenting the conduct and your performance. Emails, text messages, Slack or Teams messages, performance reviews, written discipline, offer letters, severance proposals, and timecards. Forward copies to a personal email account where lawful and allowed by company policy. Do not take confidential documents that are not yours. Write down the timeline while it is fresh, including the names of witnesses, the dates of conversations, and the precise words used in the worst incidents. The first hour with counsel is far more productive when the record is preserved.

The initial case review is free. Qualifying matters proceed on a contingency basis, where the firm's fee is a percentage of the recovery and there is no out-of-pocket cost to the employee unless the case recovers. FEHA at Gov. Code §12965(c) allows the prevailing employee to recover attorney's fees from the employer, which often offsets or covers the contingency fee. We explain the fee agreement in writing before any work begins.