No employee shall be laid off or discharged for refusing to perform work in the performance of which this code, including Section 6400, any occupational safety or health standard, or any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated, where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee or their fellow employees. Any employee who is laid off or discharged in violation of this section or is otherwise not paid because the employee refused to perform work in the performance of which this code, any occupational safety or health standard, or any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated and where the violation would create a real and apparent hazard to the employee
or their fellow employees shall have a right of action for wages for the time the employee is without work as a result of the layoff or discharge. 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
10
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case:
Hentzel v. Singer Co., 35 A.L.R. 4th 1015 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).
Hentzel v. Singer Co., 35 A.L.R. 4th 1015 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).
“” 6 Labor Code section 6311 provides: “No employee shall be laid off or discharged for refusing to perform work in the performance of which this code, any occupational safety or health standard or any safety order of the division or standards board will be violated, where such…”
Cortez v. Abich, 246 P.3d 603 (Cal. 2011).
“Code, § 7031), it is possible under Cal-OSHA that an unlicensed worker could refuse to work if he or she encountered any "real and apparent hazard" yet still be entitled to payment from the homeowner (Lab. Code, § 6311). Fourth, application of Cal-OSHA to homeowners would…”
Horton v. Cauley (N.D. Cal. 2024).
· cites it 3× “LABOR CODE SECTION 6311 18 Horton asserts a claim under California Labor Code section 6311, alleging that defendants 19 retaliated against him for refusing to work in violation of health and safety standards (Claim 17).”
Justin Bartlett v. All Am. Asphalt (C.D. Cal. 2020).
· cites it 2× “) The Complaint alleges thirteen causes of action: (1) associational discrimination; (2) associational harassment; (3) hostile work environment; (4) discrimination based on race; (5) retaliation; (6) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation; (7) violation of…”
Horton v. Cauley (N.D. Cal. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Claim 17: California Labor Code § 6311 7 California Labor Code section 6311 prohibits retaliation for refusal to work in violation of 8 health and safety standards.”
Khdrlaryan v. Olympia Med. Ctr. CA2/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” Labor Code section 6311 prohibits an employer from discharging an employee for “refusing to perform work in the performance of which this code .”
Saad Badrh v. Amazon.com, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2023).
“California Labor Code § 6310(b) protects an employee from adverse employment actions where “the employee has made a bona fide oral or written complaint” concerning “unsafe working conditions, or work practices, in their employment or place of employment.”
Marion Martinez v. West Hills Hosp., et al. (C.D. Cal. 2025).
“Plaintiff’s third cause of action alleges: 16 California Labor Code § 6311 states that no employee shall be laid off 17 or discharged for refusing to perform work in the performance of which this code, including Section 6400, any occupational safety or health 18 standard or any…”
Griffin (E.D. Cal. 2026).
“Labor 21 Code § 6310; (3) retaliation pursuant to Cal. Labor Code § 6311 ; (4) retaliation pursuant 22 to Cal.”
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.