State and federal laws protect employees from certain types of discrimination. For example, an employer in California may not treat an employee less favorably than others because of the employee's gender, religion, physical or mental disability, age (if over 40), sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, pregnancy, marital status, membership in the military, cancer diagnosis, race, national origin, or ancestry. 

Visit the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing website for important information about rights and responsibilities under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) website is good resource for information about federal anti-discrimination in employment laws.

The law in California provides some protection for the privacy rights of employees. For example, an employer may not invade an employee's privacy interests where the employee has a reasonable expectation that those interests will be kept private, and where the privacy invasion is done in a way that seriously breaches social norms. However, such a privacy violation may be justified if the employer has a legitimate and important reason to intrude upon the employee's privacy and cannot do so by less intrusive means. This type of privacy claim requires a balancing of interests on a case by case basis. Examples of privacy invasions that usually require a balancing test are an employer's collection of confidential medical information, randomly drug testing its employees, or monitoring its employees' use of company computers (although a written policy allowing the monitoring of computer use could diminish the employees' expectation of privacy). 

A few statutes specifically protect certain workplace privacy rights. For example, California Labor Code section 435 prohibits audio or video recordings of employees in restrooms, locker rooms or changing rooms. Labor Code sections 432.7 and 432.8 prohibit asking job applicants about arrests not leading to conviction, participation in a diversion program, convictions that have been judicially dismissed, or marijuana convictions that are more than two years old. Labor Code section 980 prohibits employers from asking employees or applicants to disclose personal social media passwords. Under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, employers must establish procedures to ensure the confidentiality of employees' medical information. 

Other state and federal laws can be invoked for the protection of privacy in the workplace.  

Many statutes, both state and federal, protect employees who "blow the whistle" on an employer's wrongdoing. Five types of whistleblowing protections are described below. The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupation Health & Safety Administration's Whistleblower Protection Programs web page is good resource for learning about most federal laws that provide whistleblower protection. 

False Claims Whistleblowing (Qui Tam Actions). The California False Claims Act and the federal False Claims Act prohibit knowingly submitting a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the government. Employees who believe an employer is presenting fraudulent claims may report the employer to the government agency or may take action to stop the employer from presenting the false claims. An employee may also bring a case, called a qui tam action, against the employer on behalf of the employee and the government agency. A qui tam action is one of the government's methods of enforcing the FCA. The procedures governing qui tam actions are complicated, and legal assistance is necessary to understand and follow them. Employers may not retaliate against an employee because the employee brought a qui tam action or took other action to stop the employer from presenting fraudulent claims. 

Reporting an Employer's Unlawful Conduct. Under California Labor Code section 1102.5, an employee who reasonably believes that his or her employer is violating the law may disclose information about the violation to any of the following: a) a government or law enforcement agency; b) the employee's supervisor (or other person with authority over the employee); or c) a compliance officer within the company (or any employee with authority to investigate and correct the violation). The employer may not prevent an employee from making such a disclosure and may not retaliate against an employee who does so. The employer may not retaliate against an employee for making such a disclosure in a former job or because the employee's family member has made, or is perceived to have made, such a disclosure. 

Health Care Facilities. California Health & Safety Code section 1278.5 protects employees of health care facilities who report suspected unsafe patient care or conditions. The Legislature encourages this reporting in order to protect patients and to assist accreditation and government entities charged with ensuring that health care is safe. Employers may not retaliate against employees or members of the medical staff who complain to the facility or to a government or accrediting agency about patient care or facility conditions. 

Employee Safety. California Labor Code section 6310 protects employees who "blow the whistle" by complaining to certain government agencies about unsafe working conditions or practices. Employers may not retaliate against employees for engaging in such activity, or because an employee's family member engaged in such activity. Federal law also protects against retaliation for complaining of unsafe conditions. The Occupation Health & Safety Administration's Whistleblower Protection Programs web page is good resource for learning about federal protections. 

Securities Fraud. Section 1514A of the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) prohibits an employer whose securities are publicly traded from retaliating against an employee for reporting employer conduct that the employee reasonably believes constitutes mail, wire, securities or bank fraud, or violates securities regulations. 

Termination in Breach of Contract. Where an employment contract is for a specified period of time, an employer may not, absent an employee's willful breach of duty, discharge the employee before that period ends. Where an employment contract requires good cause to terminate an employee the employer may not discharge the employee absent good cause. However, without a "good cause" agreement, employees in California may be terminated without a reason. 

Other Breaches. Both parties to an employment contract must abide by the terms of their agreement. Contract claims, however, can be complicated due to the "at will" nature of the relationship. 

Fraud. Claims for fraud sometimes arise in the context of an employment relationship. For example, an employer who induces a person to leave a job and enter an employment relationship with the employer, and does so by misrepresenting facts or by making promises the employer has no intention of performing, may have committed actionable fraud.