(a)No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because the employee has done any of the following:
(1)Made any oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, their employer, or their representative.
(2)Instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or relating to their rights or has testified or is about to testify in the proceeding or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of themselves, or others of any rights afforded to them.
(3)Participated in an occupational health and safety committee established pursuant to Section 6401.7.
(4)Reported a work-related fatality, injury, or illness, requested access to occupational injury or illness reports and records that are made or maintained pursuant to Subchapter 1 (commencing with Section 14000) of Chapter 1 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, or exercised any other rights protected by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 651 et seq.), except in cases where the employee alleges they have been retaliated against because
they have filed or made known their intention to file a workers’ compensation claim pursuant to Section 132a, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board.
(b)Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by their employer because the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint to the division, other governmental agencies having statutory responsibility for or assisting the division with reference to employee safety or health, their employer, or their representative, of unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in their employment or place of employment, or has participated in an employer-employee occupational health and safety committee, shall
be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the employer. Any employer who willfully refuses to rehire, promote, or otherwise restore an employee or former employee who has been determined to be eligible for rehiring or promotion by a grievance procedure, arbitration, or hearing authorized by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c)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.
(d)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.
(e)Notwithstanding Section 6303 or other law, as used in this section, “employee” includes a domestic work employee, except for a person who performs household domestic service that is publicly funded, including publicly funded household domestic service provided to a recipient, client, or beneficiary with a share of cost in that service.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
97
cases (
47 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case:
Ayala v. Frito Lay, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 891 (E.D. Cal. 2017).
Ayala v. Frito Lay, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 891 (E.D. Cal. 2017).
· cites it 6× “) Defendant’s motion to dismiss this claim on statute of limitations grounds will therefore be denied.”
Angelo Dahlia v. Omar Rodriguez, 735 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 4× “Dahlia filed his § 1983 complaint in November 2009, alleging seven claims: (1) retaliation against a public employee for speech disclosing police misconduct, in violation of the First Amendment; (2) retaliation against a public employee for disclosing information to a government…”
Creighton v. City of Livingston, 628 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (E.D. Cal. 2009).
· cites it 5× “As to the California claims, Defendants argue that: (1) no private right of action for damages exists under the California Constitution; (2) Plaintiff has failed to allege administrative exhaustion with the California Labor Commissioner as required under California Labor Code §…”
Ferretti v. Pfizer Inc., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 5× “Section 6310(b) Plaintiffs complaint also relies on California Labor Code section 6310(b) as a basis for her claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”
Nyulassy v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6770 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The complaint alleged four causes of action arising out of plaintiff’s employment relationship with defendant, namely, (1) wrongful demotion in violation of public policy (claimed under, inter alia, Lab. Code, § 6310), (2) violation of statute (Lab.”
Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Washington, Inc., 28 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1086 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
“) 5 Labor Code section 6310, subdivision (b) grants reinstatement and reimbursement to “[a]ny employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment by his or her employer…”
Boston v. Penny Lane Centers, Inc., 28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1605 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009).
“(Lab. Code, § 6310.) “Where a statute creates a right that did not exist at common law, and provides a comprehensive system of administrative enforcement, a requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted may be implied.”
Dabbs v. Cardiopulmonary Mgmt. Servs., 2 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 205 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The court noted Labor Code section 6310 forbids retaliatory discharge for lodging a complaint with a division of California's Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) or the employer concerning employee safety.”
Day v. Sears Holdings Corp., 930 F. Supp. 2d 1146 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
“18, 2012) (“California Labor Code section 6310 ... prohibits discharging an employee for making an oral or written complaint about unsafe working conditions or work practices in a place of employment”); Cole, 11 Cal.”
McKenna v. Permanente Med. Grp., Inc., 894 F. Supp. 2d 1258 (E.D. Cal. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Retaliation The FAC’s (eleventh) retaliation claim references California Labor Code section 6310 (“section 6310”) and FEHA and alleges: Ms.”
Cuevas v. SkyWest Airlines, 17 F. Supp. 3d 956 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
· cites it 5× “Cuevas’s five remaining causes of action are for: (1) wrongful termination in retaliation for Cuevas’s safety complaints under California Labor Code section 6310; (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair…”
— Cal. Labor Code § 6310(a) — 3 cases
— Cal. Labor Code § 6310(a)(1) — 1 case
— Cal. Labor Code § 6310(b) — 6 cases
Ferretti v. Pfizer Inc., 855 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (N.D. Cal. 2012).
“Section 6310(b) Plaintiffs complaint also relies on California Labor Code section 6310(b) as a basis for her claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy.”
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.