Understand the Law Related to Your Potential Legal Claims
The claims we pursue are grounded in specific statutes, regulations, and case law. This page provides a plain-language overview of the legal authority behind each type of claim — so you can come to your consultation informed.
Wrongful Termination
Tameny Claim
A Tameny claim arises when an employer fires an employee in violation of a fundamental public policy of California. The California Supreme Court established this tort in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, holding that an employer's right to discharge an at-will employee is limited by public policy. To prevail, the employee must show the termination violated a policy that is (1) delineated in a constitutional or statutory provision, (2) public in the sense that it inures to the benefit of the public rather than solely to the individual, (3) well-established at the time of the discharge, and (4) substantial and fundamental.
Key Authorities
Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167
Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083
California Labor Code § 1102.5
Whistleblowing
California Labor Code § 1102.5 is the primary whistleblower protection statute. It prohibits employers from retaliating against an employee who discloses information to a government or law enforcement agency, or internally to a supervisor, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe the information discloses a violation of a state or federal statute, rule, or regulation. Retaliation includes termination, demotion, suspension, or any adverse employment action. The employee need not prove the underlying violation actually occurred — only that they had a reasonable belief.
Key Authorities
California Labor Code § 1102.5
California Labor Code § 1102.6 (burden-shifting framework)
Health & Safety Code § 1278.5 (healthcare whistleblowers)
Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc. (2022) 12 Cal.5th 703
Title VII
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.) prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It covers hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoffs, training, and any other term or condition of employment. Title VII also prohibits retaliation against employees who oppose discriminatory practices or participate in an EEOC proceeding. Claims must generally be filed with the EEOC before a civil lawsuit can be brought.
Key Authorities
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973) 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White (2006) 548 U.S. 53 (retaliation standard)
ADEA / FEHA — Age Discrimination
The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.) protects workers 40 and older from discrimination based on age by employers with 20 or more employees. California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code § 12940 et seq.) provides broader protection — it applies to employers with 5 or more employees and prohibits age discrimination in all aspects of employment. Under FEHA, the employee must show age was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment action. California law is generally more protective than federal law.
Key Authorities
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
California Government Code § 12940(a) (FEHA)
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. (2009) 557 U.S. 167
Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203
Discrimination
California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) prohibits employment discrimination based on race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age (40 and over), sexual orientation, or military and veteran status. FEHA applies to employers with 5 or more employees. Discrimination can be direct (disparate treatment) or indirect (disparate impact). The employee must show that a protected characteristic was a substantial motivating factor in the adverse employment decision.
Key Authorities
California Government Code § 12940 (FEHA)
California Government Code § 12926 (definitions)
Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317
Retaliation
California law prohibits retaliation against employees who engage in protected activity — including reporting discrimination or harassment, requesting or taking protected leave (FMLA/CFRA), filing a workers' compensation claim, or opposing unlawful employment practices. FEHA's anti-retaliation provision (Gov. Code § 12940(h)) covers retaliation for opposing any practice prohibited by FEHA or for filing a complaint, testifying, or assisting in a FEHA proceeding. Labor Code § 132a separately prohibits retaliation for filing or pursuing a workers' compensation claim. The California Family Rights Act (CFRA) and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) both prohibit interference with or retaliation for taking protected leave.
Key Authorities
California Government Code § 12940(h) (FEHA retaliation)
California Labor Code § 132a (workers' compensation retaliation)
California Labor Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower retaliation)
California Government Code § 12945.2 (CFRA)
29 U.S.C. § 2615 (FMLA anti-retaliation)
Moore v. Regents of University of California (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 216
Breach of Contract
Although California is an at-will employment state, an employer may be bound by an express written contract, an implied contract arising from the employer's conduct, policies, or representations, or a covenant of good faith and fair dealing. An implied contract can be found based on factors such as longevity of employment, assurances of continued employment, personnel policies, and the employer's practices. Termination in violation of such a contract gives rise to a breach of contract claim. The California Supreme Court recognized implied employment contracts in Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654.
Key Authorities
Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654
Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317
California Civil Code § 1549 et seq. (contracts generally)
Scott v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 454
Workers' Compensation Retaliation
California Labor Code § 132a makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to discriminate against an employee for filing or pursuing a workers' compensation claim, or for testifying in a workers' compensation proceeding. An employee who is terminated, demoted, or otherwise penalized for exercising workers' compensation rights may bring a claim before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and may also pursue a civil tort action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy under the Tameny doctrine.
Key Authorities
California Labor Code § 132a
California Labor Code § 3600 et seq. (workers' compensation generally)
Shoemaker v. Myers (1990) 52 Cal.3d 1 (civil tort remedy)
City of Moorpark v. Superior Court (1998) 18 Cal.4th 1143
Constructive Discharge
Constructive discharge occurs when an employer deliberately creates or knowingly permits working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee's position would feel compelled to resign. California courts treat a constructive discharge as a termination for purposes of wrongful termination claims. The employee must show both that the conditions were objectively intolerable and that the employer either intended to force the resignation or knew the conditions would have that effect. Constructive discharge can serve as the basis for a Tameny claim, a FEHA discrimination or retaliation claim, or a breach of contract claim.
Key Authorities
Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238
California Government Code § 12940(a) (FEHA)
Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders (2004) 542 U.S. 129
Steele v. Youthful Offender Parole Board (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1241
Student Discipline & Dismissal
Fair Process
The right to fair process in student discipline and dismissal matters is established primarily through each institution's own published policies — found in the student handbook, course catalogs, and any supplemental disciplinary procedures the school has adopted. California courts have consistently held that a private university's published rules and procedures form a binding contractual obligation to its students. Beyond the handbook, fair process principles are reinforced by constitutional due process requirements (for public institutions), Title IX regulations, and the general principle that disciplinary proceedings must be conducted in good faith and in accordance with the school's own stated rules. When an institution departs from its own procedures — whether in the investigation, hearing, appeal, or notification stages — that departure can itself constitute a legal violation.
Key Authorities
Student handbook and published disciplinary procedures of the specific institution (primary source — varies by school)
Goss v. Lopez (1975) 419 U.S. 565 (due process in public school discipline)
Paulsen v. Golden Gate University (1979) 25 Cal.3d 803 (private university handbook as contract)
Zumbrun v. University of Southern California (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1 (institutional obligation to follow own rules)
34 C.F.R. Part 106 (Title IX regulations — procedural requirements)
Due Process
Due process in the educational context requires that a student facing discipline or dismissal receive adequate notice of the charges against them and a meaningful opportunity to respond before a final decision is made. For public colleges and universities, this is a constitutional requirement under the Fourteenth Amendment. The level of process required increases with the severity of the potential consequence — a short suspension may require only informal notice and a chance to tell the student's side of the story, while dismissal or a finding that will follow a student permanently requires more formal procedures including a hearing, the right to present evidence, and a written decision. Private institutions are not directly bound by the Constitution but are bound by their own published procedures, which courts enforce as contractual obligations.
Key Authorities
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV (public institutions)
Goss v. Lopez (1975) 419 U.S. 565
Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz (1978) 435 U.S. 78
Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for process required)
California Education Code § 66017 (student rights at public community colleges)
California Education Code § 76030 et seq. (discipline procedures, community colleges)
Policies and Procedures
Every accredited college and university is required to maintain and publish its academic and disciplinary policies. These are typically found in the student handbook, the academic catalog, course syllabi, the institution's website, and any supplemental codes of conduct. California courts treat these published policies as forming a contract between the institution and the student. When a school fails to follow its own stated procedures — whether in grading, academic integrity proceedings, disciplinary hearings, or appeals — the student may have a claim for breach of that implied contract. It is important to obtain and preserve copies of all applicable policies at the time of the incident, as institutions sometimes update their handbooks mid-year.
Key Authorities
Student handbook, academic catalog, and code of conduct of the specific institution (primary source)
Zumbrun v. University of Southern California (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1
Paulsen v. Golden Gate University (1979) 25 Cal.3d 803
California Education Code § 66300 (required policies at public institutions)
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) accreditation standards (procedural fairness requirements)
Arbitrary, Capricious, or Erroneous Evaluation
Courts will not substitute their judgment for that of academic faculty on matters of pure academic evaluation — but they will intervene when a grade or academic decision was arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith. An evaluation is arbitrary or capricious when it is made without any rational basis, departs substantially from the institution's own standards, or is the product of bias, retaliation, or a failure to apply the stated grading criteria. An erroneous evaluation involves a factual mistake — for example, a professor who miscalculated a final grade, applied the wrong rubric, or graded work that was not the student's. Example: A student receives a failing grade in a clinical rotation after reporting a supervisor's misconduct. The grade is assigned by the same supervisor with no written evaluation, no prior notice of deficiency, and in direct contradiction of the student's prior satisfactory reviews. A court would examine whether the grade reflected a genuine academic judgment or was a pretext for retaliation.
Key Authorities
Board of Curators of the University of Missouri v. Horowitz (1978) 435 U.S. 78
Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing (1985) 474 U.S. 214
Paulsen v. Golden Gate University (1979) 25 Cal.3d 803
Zumbrun v. University of Southern California (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1
California Education Code § 76224 (community college grade challenge procedures)
Writ of Administrative Mandamus
A writ of administrative mandamus (Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5) is a court order directing a public agency or institution to set aside an administrative decision that was made without proper authority, without a fair hearing, without sufficient evidence, or as an abuse of discretion. In the student discipline context, it is used to challenge a final decision by a public college or university — such as a dismissal, suspension, or academic integrity finding — after internal appeals have been exhausted. The court reviews the administrative record and asks whether the institution followed its own procedures, whether the findings were supported by the evidence, and whether the penalty was proportionate. If the writ is granted, the court can order the institution to reverse the decision, conduct a new hearing, or take other corrective action. Private institutions may be subject to a similar common law writ where they exercise quasi-judicial functions.
Key Authorities
California Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5
Bixby v. Pierno (1971) 4 Cal.3d 130 (standard of review)
Doe v. Regents of the University of California (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 1055
Pomona College v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1716
California Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 (traditional mandamus — private institutions)
Student & Disability Rights, IEP & 504 Matters
IDEA — Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., is the federal law that guarantees students with disabilities the right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). IDEA requires public schools to identify, evaluate, and provide specially designed instruction and related services to eligible students through an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Parents have the right to participate in IEP development, to receive prior written notice of proposed changes, and to challenge school decisions through mediation or a due process hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). IDEA covers students from birth through age 21 and applies to all public schools receiving federal funding.
Key Authorities
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
34 C.F.R. Part 300 (IDEA regulations)
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017) 580 U.S. 386 (FAPE standard)
Board of Education v. Rowley (1982) 458 U.S. 176 (foundational FAPE case)
California Education Code § 56000 et seq. (California special education law)
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794) prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance — which includes virtually all public schools and most private colleges. Unlike IDEA, Section 504 does not require a formal IEP but does require schools to provide reasonable accommodations and modifications so that students with disabilities have equal access to educational programs. A 504 Plan documents the agreed accommodations. Schools that fail to implement a 504 Plan, deny eligibility without proper evaluation, or retaliate against families who assert 504 rights may be liable under the statute.
Key Authorities
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794
34 C.F.R. Part 104 (Section 504 regulations)
Alexander v. Choate (1985) 469 U.S. 287
California Education Code § 56026 et seq.
ADA — Americans with Disabilities Act
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.) prohibits public entities — including public schools, community colleges, and state universities — from discriminating against individuals with disabilities in their programs, services, and activities. Title III covers private schools and colleges that are places of public accommodation. The ADA requires reasonable modifications to policies, practices, and procedures, and prohibits retaliation against individuals who assert their rights. In the educational context, ADA claims often overlap with Section 504 claims and are analyzed under similar standards.
Key Authorities
Americans with Disabilities Act, Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.
Americans with Disabilities Act, Title III, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.
28 C.F.R. Part 35 (Title II regulations)
Tennessee v. Lane (2004) 541 U.S. 509
California Government Code § 11135 (state anti-discrimination law)
California Education Code
California's Education Code contains extensive protections for students with disabilities and for all students facing discrimination, harassment, or bullying. Key provisions include the California Special Education Law (Ed. Code § 56000 et seq.), which supplements IDEA with additional state-level rights and procedures; Education Code § 220, which prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of disability, gender, nationality, race, religion, sexual orientation, and other characteristics in any educational program receiving state funds; and the provisions governing student discipline, appeals, and due process at community colleges (§ 76030 et seq.) and K–12 schools (§ 48900 et seq.). California law frequently provides broader protections than federal law.
Key Authorities
California Education Code § 56000 et seq. (special education)
California Education Code § 220 (prohibition on discrimination and harassment)
California Education Code § 48900 et seq. (K–12 discipline)
California Education Code § 76030 et seq. (community college discipline)
California Education Code §§ 234–234.5 (Seth's Law — anti-bullying)
Seth's Law (AB 9)
Seth's Law, enacted as Assembly Bill 9 and codified at California Education Code §§ 234–234.5, requires all California K–12 public schools to adopt a comprehensive anti-bullying policy that specifically prohibits discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on actual or perceived characteristics including disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and association with a person or group with one or more of these characteristics. Schools must take prompt and effective action to investigate and respond to reports of bullying. A school's failure to adopt a compliant policy, failure to investigate, or failure to take corrective action after being notified of bullying can give rise to a legal claim. The law is named for Seth Walsh, a 13-year-old who died by suicide after being bullied.
Key Authorities
California Education Code §§ 234–234.5 (Seth's Law)
California Education Code § 48900(r) (bullying as grounds for suspension/expulsion)
California Education Code § 32261 (safe school planning)
Assembly Bill 9 (2011) — Legislative history
Education Code § 220 — Prohibition on Discrimination and Harassment
Education Code § 220 prohibits discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying in any educational program or activity conducted by a school district, county office of education, charter school, or community college district that receives state funds. Protected characteristics include disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, national origin, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and any other characteristic listed in the FEHA. Section 220 is broader than federal Title IX in that it covers all protected characteristics — not just sex — and applies to both K–12 and higher education institutions receiving state funding. A student who is subjected to harassment or discrimination on any of these bases, and whose school fails to respond adequately, may have a claim under this section.
Key Authorities
California Education Code § 220
California Education Code § 262.4 (enforcement)
California Government Code § 12926 (FEHA protected characteristics — incorporated by reference)
Donovan v. Poway Unified School District (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 567
Bullying
Under California law, bullying is defined as any severe or pervasive physical or verbal act or conduct — including communications made in writing or by means of an electronic act — directed toward a student that has or can reasonably be predicted to have the effect of placing a reasonable student in fear of harm, causing a substantially detrimental effect on the student's physical or mental health, substantially interfering with the student's academic performance, or substantially interfering with the student's ability to participate in or benefit from school services, activities, or privileges. Schools have an affirmative duty to prevent and respond to bullying. When a school is notified of bullying and fails to take prompt corrective action, it may be liable under Seth's Law, Education Code § 220, Section 504, Title IX, or the ADA — depending on the basis of the bullying and the type of institution.
Key Authorities
California Education Code § 48900(r) (definition of bullying)
California Education Code §§ 234–234.5 (Seth's Law)
California Education Code § 220
Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999) 526 U.S. 629 (peer harassment under Title IX)
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District (1998) 524 U.S. 274
Ready to Discuss Your Situation?
Understanding the law is the first step. The next is speaking with an attorney who knows how to apply it.
