Cal. Codes » Labor Code
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 232.5 (2026)

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

No employer may do any of the following:

(a)Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing information about the employer’s working conditions.

(b)Require an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports to deny the employee the right to disclose information about the employer’s working conditions.

(c)Discharge, formally discipline, or otherwise discriminate against an employee who discloses information about the employer’s working conditions.

(d)This section is not intended to permit an employee to disclose proprietary information, trade secret information, or information that is otherwise subject to a legal privilege without the consent of his or her employer.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Tam v. Qualcomm, Inc., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (S.D. Cal. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tam v. Qualcomm, Inc., 300 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (S.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 7× “§ 78U-6, California Business and Professions Code § 17200, California Labor Code § 1102.5, and California Labor Code § 232.”
Day v. Sears Holdings Corp., 930 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2013). · cites it 3× “5 lation of FEHA; (4) retaliation for complaints of gender discrimination in violation of public policy; (5) retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment in violation of FEHA; (6) retaliation for complaints of sexual harassment in violation of public policy; (7) -wrongful…”
United States ex rel. Lupo v. Quality Assurance Servs., Inc., 242 F. Supp. 3d 1020 (S.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 3730(h); (4) retaliation in violation of California Labor Code section 1102.5 (“section 1102.”
NYGÅRD, INC. v. Uusi-Kerttula, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). “That section provides, among other things, that an employer may not “[r]equire, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from disclosing information about the employer’s working conditions” or “[r]equire an employee to sign a waiver or other document that purports…”
Jacquelin Davis v. O'Melveny & Myers, a California Ltd. Liab. Corp., 485 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). “It might even chill enforcement of Cal. Labor Code § 232.5 , which forbids employers from keeping employees from disclosing certain “working conditions” and from retaliating against employees who do so.”
Glassdoor, Inc. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cnty., 9 Cal. App. 5th 623 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “(Lab. Code, § 232.5.) The message conveyed to such would-be speakers by the rule MZ advocates is the one articulated by Justice McAdams: that they may be entitled to engage in anonymous criticism, but only if they are prepared to pay a significant sum—or, as he says, ‘“tens of…”
Cuevas v. SkyWest Airlines, 17 F. Supp. 3d 956 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 2× “Cuevas further argues that Sky-West wrongfully terminated his employment in violation of the policy embodied in California Labor Code section 232.5. Cue-vas argues that SkyWest terminated him for refusing to sign the ICM, a document Cuevas contends unlawfully restricted his…”
Harvey v. Sybase, Inc., 103 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 387 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “Labor Code Section 232.5's Policy Was Not "Well Established" When Harvey Was Terminated Sybase contends that the trial court's nonsuit ruling was correct because at the time of Harvey's discharge, there was no "well established" public policy protecting Harvey's right to…”
Fleeman v. Cnty. of Kern (E.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 12× “1 , Cal. Lab. Code § 232.5 . (Doc. 35 at 13-14.”
Marcie Hamilton v. JUUL Labs, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021). · cites it 7× “Plausibility of Claim 4 (California Labor Code § 232.5) 19 Claim 4 is predicated on an alleged violation of (1) California Labor Code § 232.”
Manuao v. L.A. Downtown Med. Ctr. CA2/7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 3× “); (12) unsafe workplace conditions (Lab. Code, §§ 232.5, 6310); (13) whistleblower retaliation (Lab.”
Julia Smith v. Constellation Brands, Inc. (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “, for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, 2 failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy under Cal.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Cal. Labor Code § 232.5(a) — 1 case
Marcie Hamilton v. JUUL Labs, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021). “Plausibility of Claim 4 (California Labor Code § 232.5) 19 Claim 4 is predicated on an alleged violation of (1) California Labor Code § 232.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 232.5(b) — 1 case
Marcie Hamilton v. JUUL Labs, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021). “Plausibility of Claim 4 (California Labor Code § 232.5) 19 Claim 4 is predicated on an alleged violation of (1) California Labor Code § 232.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 232.5(c) — 2 cases
Julia Smith v. Constellation Brands, Inc. (9th Cir. 2018). “, for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in an interactive process, 2 failure to prevent discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination in violation of public policy under Cal.”
Watkins v. Westin (E.D. Cal. 2022).
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.