California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.

(b)An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information, or because the employer believes that the employee disclosed or may disclose information, to a government or law enforcement agency, to a person with authority over the employee or another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or for providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether disclosing the information is part of the employee’s job duties.

(c)An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.

(d)An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for having exercised their rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment.

(e)A report made by an employee of a government agency to their employer is a disclosure of information to a government or law enforcement agency pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b).

(f)(1)In addition to other remedies available, an employer is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per employee for each violation of this section to be awarded to the employee who was retaliated against.

(2)In assessing this penalty, the Labor Commissioner shall consider the nature and seriousness of the violation based on the evidence obtained during the course of the investigation. The Labor Commissioner’s consideration of the nature and seriousness of the violation shall include, but is not limited to, the type of violation, the economic or mental harm suffered, and the chilling effect on the exercise of employment rights in the workplace, and shall be considered to the extent evidence obtained during the investigation concerned any of these or other relevant factors.

(g)This section does not apply to rules, regulations, or policies that implement, or to actions by employers against employees who violate, the confidentiality of the lawyer-client privilege of Article 3 (commencing with Section 950) of, or the physician-patient privilege of Article 6 (commencing with Section 990) of, Chapter 4 of Division 8 of the Evidence Code, or trade secret information.

(h)An employer, or a person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee because the employee is a family member of a person who has, or is perceived to have, engaged in any acts protected by this section.

(i)For purposes of this section, “employer” or “a person acting on behalf of the employer” includes, but is not limited to, a client employer as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 2810.3 and an employer listed in subdivision (b) of Section 6400.

(j)The court is authorized to award reasonable attorney’s fees to a plaintiff who brings a successful action for a violation of these provisions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 645 cases (402 in the last 5 years), 1986–2026 · leading case: Minor v. Fedex Off. & Print Servs., Inc., 182 F. Supp. 3d 966 (N.D. Cal. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Minor v. Fedex Off. & Print Servs., Inc., 182 F. Supp. 3d 966 (N.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 15× “, and California Labor Code § 1102.5. Id. *973 On February 1, 2016, FedEx Office removed the case to federal court.”

Jacobson v. Schwarzenegger, 357 F. Supp. 2d 1198 (C.D. Cal. 2004). · cites it 11× “The fifth cause of action fails to plead a claim for violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5 because the defendants are immune from suit; 3 6.”

Mize-Kurzman v. Marin Cmty. Coll. Dist., 275 Educ. L. Rep. 882 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 8× “8 (West 2005); Cal. Lab. Code Ann. § 1102.5 (West Supp. 2006).”

Ayala v. Frito Lay, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 891 (E.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 6× “6 because he ‘“merely alleges that he complained of his employer’s conduct within the company itself’).”

Neveu v. City of Fresno, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (E.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 7× “Plaintiff brings the following state law claims against Defendants: violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 and violation of Cal.”

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006). · cites it 2× “8 (West 2005); Cal. Lab. Code Ann. § 1102.5 (West Supp. 2006).”

Ferretti v. Pfizer Inc., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 11× “On September 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging: (1) violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5; (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (4) breach of express or implied contract; and…”

Ross v. Cnty. of Riverside, 248 Cal. Rptr. 3d 696 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2019). · cites it 4× “" ( Lab. Code, § 1102.5, subd. (b).) "A report made by an employee of a government agency to his or her employer is a disclosure of information to a government or law enforcement agency.”

Tam v. Qualcomm, Inc., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (S.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 8× “§ 78U-6, California Business and Professions Code § 17200, California Labor Code § 1102.5, and California Labor Code § 232.”

Soukup v. Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, 139 P.3d 30 (Cal. 2006). · cites it 2× “Labor Code section 1102.5, subdivision (b) provides: “An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or…”

Campbell v. Regents of Univ. of California, 106 P.3d 976 (Cal. 2005). · cites it 3× “Labor Code section 1102.5 Campbell also seeks relief under Labor Code section 1102.”

Green v. Ralee Eng'g Co., 960 P.2d 1046 (Cal. 1998). · cites it 4× “; Lab.Code, § 1102.5.) The court's observations further reflect an appreciation of the need at the outset to delineate the "configuration" of a public policy exception and to formulate well-defined standards for its application.”

Show all 645 citing cases →

— Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(a) — 7 cases

Dowell v. Contra Costa Cnty., 928 F. Supp. 2d 1137 (N.D. Cal. 2013).

Vierria v. California High. Patrol, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

Marcie Hamilton v. JUUL Labs, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Brown v. TGS Mgmt. Co., LLC (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).

Esquibel v. Kinder Morgan, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021).

— Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(b) — 60 cases

Love v. Motion Indus., Inc., 309 F. Supp. 2d 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

Patten v. Grant Jt. Union High Sch. Dist., 23 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1588 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005).

Bowen v. M. Caratan, Inc., 142 F. Supp. 3d 1007 (E.D. Cal. 2015).

Martin Ventress v. Japan Airlines, 747 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 2014).

Day v. Sears Holdings Corp., 930 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2013).

— Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(b)(h) — 1 case

Rendon v. Infinity Fasteners, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2023).

— Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(c) — 13 cases

Ferretti v. Pfizer Inc., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “On September 9, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging: (1) violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5; (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”); (4) breach of express or implied contract; and…”

Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

Vierria v. California High. Patrol, 644 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

Mayo v. Recycle to Conserve, Inc., 795 F. Supp. 2d 1031 (E.D. Cal. 2011).

McCarthy v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 819 F. Supp. 2d 923 (E.D. Cal. 2011).

— Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5(f) — 2 cases

Sillah v. Command Int'l Sec. Servises, 154 F. Supp. 3d 891 (N.D. Cal. 2015).

Sami Mitri v. Walgreen Co., 660 F. App'x 528 (9th Cir. 2016).

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.