Cal. Codes » Labor Code / DIVISION 2. EMPLOYMENT REGULATION AND SUPERVISION / PART 3. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES / CHAPTER 4. Reemployment Privileges
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 1050 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person, or agent or officer thereof, who, after having discharged an employee from the service of such person or after an employee has voluntarily left such service, by any misrepresentation prevents or attempts to prevent the former employee from obtaining employment, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Randi W. v. Muroc Jt. Unified Sch. Dist., 929 P.2d 582 (Cal. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Randi W. v. Muroc Jt. Unified Sch. Dist., 929 P.2d 582 (Cal. 1997). · cites it 2× “"]; Lab. Code, §§ 1050 [misdemeanor to misrepresent facts regarding former employee to prevent employee's further employment], 1054 [treble damages for misrepresenting employment facts].”
Kelly v. Gen. Tel. Co., 136 Cal. App. 3d 278 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 2× “Labor Code section 1050 applies only to misrepresentations made to prospective employers other than the defendant.”
Jovine v. FHP, Inc., 14 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 150 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “a full consideration and re-examination of all of the above, the Special Referee finds that there are no triable issues of material fact as to the Third, Fourth, and Eighth Causes of Action, and Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law for the following…”
Toranto v. Jaffurs, 297 F. Supp. 3d 1073 (S.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 2× “He further argues there is an implied private right of action under 510 et seq .”
Walker v. Boeing Corp., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002). · cites it 2× “” Cal.Lab.Code § 1050. A .civil action to enforce this section is created by Labor Code section 1054, which provides that “any person or agent or officer thereof, who violates any provision of sections 1050 to 1052, inclusive, is liable to the party aggrieved, in a civil action,…”
Smith v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “The claim of “blacklisting” evolved from California Labor Code Sections 1050 and 1054, which allow an employee to initiate litigation against his former employer for misrepresentations made after he has left employment that preclude him from finding future employment.”
Mungo v. UTA French Airlines, 166 Cal. App. 3d 327 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Mungo and Wessel brought an additional cause of action under California Labor Code section 1050. 2 On the grounds that labor disputes between carriers and employees are governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA), and that the RLA preempts state jurisdiction, the trial court found…”
Stenehjem v. Sareen, 226 Cal. App. 4th 1405 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). “Stenehjem alleged six causes of action against Defendants: defamation; unlawful prevention of employment by misrepresentation (Lab. Code, § 1050); employment discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Gov.”
Martinez v. Scott Specialty Gases, Inc., 100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 403 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). “Gabriel claimed unlawful termination in violation of public policy, defamation and misrepresentation concerning other employment (Lab.Code, § 1050), while Ann, his spouse, claimed loss of consortium.”
Sanchez v. Cnty. of San Bernardino, 29 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1009 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “(Lab. Code, § 1050.) Tenth: Intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
Ely v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 875 F. Supp. 1422 (C.D. Cal. 1995). · cites it 2× “), 2 (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) intentional interference with prospective business advantage, (5) defamation, (6) violation of California Labor Code section 1050, and (7) intentional infliction of emotional…”
Smith v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., 649 F. Supp. 2d 1073 (E.D. Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “The claim of “blacklisting” evolved from California Labor Code Sections 1050 and 1054, which allow an employee to initiate litigation against his former employer for misrepresentations made after he has left employment that preclude him from finding future employment.”
Show all 27 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.