California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 98.6 (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)A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate, retaliate, or take any adverse action against any employee or applicant for employment because the employee or applicant engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or because the employee or applicant for employment has filed a bona fide complaint or claim or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or relating to their rights that are under the jurisdiction of the Labor Commissioner, made a written or oral complaint that they are owed unpaid wages, or because the employee has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699, or has testified or is about to testify in a proceeding pursuant to that section, or because of the exercise by the employee or applicant for employment on behalf of themselves or others of any rights afforded them.

(b)(1)Any employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, retaliated against, subjected to an adverse action, or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of their employment because the employee engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or because the employee has made a bona fide complaint or claim to the division pursuant to this part, or because the employee has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699 shall be entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by those acts of the employer. If an employer engages in any action prohibited by this section within 90 days of the protected activity specified in this section, there shall be a rebuttable presumption in favor of the employee’s claim.

(2)An employer who willfully refuses to hire, 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.

(3)In addition to other remedies available, an employer who violates this section 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 or employees who suffered the violation.

(c)(1)Any applicant for employment who is refused employment, who is not selected for a training program leading to employment, or who in any other manner is discriminated against in the terms and conditions of any offer of employment because the applicant engaged in any conduct delineated in this chapter, including the conduct described in subdivision (k) of Section 96, and Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1101) of Part 3 of Division 2, or because the applicant has made a bona fide complaint or claim to the division pursuant to this part, or because the employee has initiated any action or notice pursuant to Section 2699 shall be entitled to employment and reimbursement for lost wages and work benefits caused by the acts of the prospective employer.

(2)This subdivision shall not be construed to invalidate any collective bargaining agreement that requires an applicant for a position that is subject to the collective bargaining agreement to sign a contract that protects either or both of the following as specified in subparagraphs (A) and (B), nor shall this subdivision be construed to invalidate any employer requirement of an applicant for a position that is not subject to a collective bargaining agreement to sign an employment contract that protects either or both of the following:

(A)An employer against any conduct that is actually in direct conflict with the essential enterprise-related interests of the employer and where breach of that contract would actually constitute a material and substantial disruption of the employer’s operation.

(B)A firefighter against any disease that is presumed to arise in the course and scope of employment, by limiting their consumption of tobacco products on and off the job.

(d)The provisions of this section creating new actions or remedies that are effective on January 1, 2002, to employees or applicants for employment do not apply to any state or local law enforcement agency, any religious association or corporation specified in subdivision (d) of Section 12926 of the Government Code, except as provided in Section 12926.2 of the Government Code, or any person described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code.

(e)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 conduct delineated in this chapter.

(f)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.

(g)Subdivisions (e) and (f) shall not apply to claims arising under subdivision (k) of Section 96 unless the lawful conduct occurring during nonwork hours away from the employer’s premises involves the exercise of employee rights otherwise covered under subdivision (a).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 112 cases (71 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: Ayala v. Frito Lay, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 891 (E.D. Cal. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ayala v. Frito Lay, Inc., 263 F. Supp. 3d 891 (E.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 5× “7 Claims Under California Labor Code § 98.6, employers may not discharge or discriminate against an employee for engaging in certain activities, including “filing a complaint with the Labor Commissioner or testifying in such proceedings.”

Arias v. Superior Court, 209 P.3d 923 (Cal. 2009). · cites it 2× “(10) As defendants point out, there remain situations in which nonparty aggrieved employees may profit from a judgment in an action brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.”

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 §…”

Pinder v. Emp. Dev. Dep't, 227 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2017). · cites it 3× “loyment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) against EDD; (2) discrimination based on race pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) against EDD; (3) harassment based on race (pursuant to FEHA and Title VII against EDD; pursuant to FEHA only against the individual…”

Muniz v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 731 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to the Court’s Case Management Scheduling Order, the deadline to add additional claims was August 18, 2009. (Docket No. 19.”

Rope v. Auto-Chlor Sys. of Washington, Inc., 28 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1086 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “Labor Code section 98.6 Labor Code section 98.”

Neveu v. City of Fresno, 392 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (E.D. Cal. 2005). · cites it 2× “5 because, pursuant to Cal. Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 98.7, claims under Section 1102.”

Wholey v. Roebuck, 803 A.2d 482 (Md. 2002). · cites it 2× “); CAL. LAB.CODE § 98.6 (West 1989); CONN. GEN.”

Scott Teutscher v. Riverside Sheriffs Assn, 835 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2016). “§ 1140 ; wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under California common law; and retaliatory discharge in violation of California Labor Code §§ 98.6 and 1102.5.”

Henry v. Regents of the Univ. of California, 37 F. Supp. 3d 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff then filed suit on November 13, 2012, asserting six causes of action: (1) harassment based on race under Title VII, (2) retaliation under Title VII, (3) harassment and hostile work environment based on race under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), (4)…”

Turner v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 892 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (N.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 4× “§ 526a; Cal. Labor Code §§ 98.6 , 1102.5; Cal. Govt.”

Hennighan v. Insphere Ins. Solutions, 38 F. Supp. 3d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2014). · cites it 3× “The Second Amended Complaint contains the following causes of action: (1) unlawful discharge, discrimination, and retaliation under California Labor Code Sections 98.6 and 1102.”

Show all 112 citing cases →

— Cal. Labor Code § 98.6(a) — 6 cases

Loggins v. Leland Stanford Junior Univ. (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Hill Phoenix, Inc. v. Classic Refrigeration SoCal, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Doherty v. Asurion UBIF Franchise, LLC (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Schnell v. Interstate Assembly Sys., Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Altemus v. Amazon.com Servs. (S.D. Cal. 2024).

— Cal. Labor Code § 98.6(b)(3) — 1 case

Brown v. Beazley USA Servs., Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2025).

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.