California Provides Broad Protections

In California, Labor Code section 1102.5 encourages employees to notify an appropriate government or law enforcement agency when they have reason to believe that their employer is violating laws that were enacted to protect corporate shareholders, investors, employees and the general public. These are commonly referred to as “whistleblower” protections. Even without this legislation to protect employees, terminating an employee who reported such violations would likely be a wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

• Labor Code section 1102.5 provides expansive whistleblower protections to California employees.

It is illegal in California to make, adopt or enforce any rule, regulation or policy to:

• Prevent an employee from:
• Disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency
• Disclosing information to a person with authority over the employee (internal complaints)
• Disclosing information to another employee who has the authority to investigate, discover, or correct the violation (internal complaints)
• Providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing or inquiry
• If the employee reasonably believes that the information discloses either of the following:
• A violation of state or federal statute
• A violation of or noncompliance with a local, state or federal rule or regulation

Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against an employee for disclosing this type of information or because the employer believes the employee may disclose this type of information — even if the employee has not actually done so. For more information, see ”Perceived Whistleblowers” on this page.

An employee is protected from retaliation when the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a local, state or federal rule or regulation. In other words, there does not need to be an actual violation of the law; the employee is protected if the employee had reasonable cause to believe that the information disclosed a violation of the law. Employers cannot discipline, terminate or otherwise take adverse action against an employee who engages in protected whistleblower activity.

The California Supreme Court recently held that an employee is also protected under California’s whistleblower law even when the employee reports information already known by the employer or a government agency.1

• Recently, a California Court of Appeal found that even if a whistleblower is mistaken about a violation of the law, as long as the employee had a reasonable and in good faith belief in their report, the employee is still protected from retaliation for raising the issue as a protected activity.2

An employee who refuses to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state or federal rule or regulation is also protected from retaliation. These protections apply even if the activity involved a former employer.3

The protection further extends to employees of:4

• The state or any political subdivision of the state
• Any county, city or city and county, including any charter city or county
• Any school district or community college district
• Any municipal or public corporation
• Any political subdivision
• The University of California

A report that an employee of a government agency makes to their employer is a disclosure of information to a government or law enforcement agency. 5

Employers are also prohibited from retaliating against an employee because a family member of the employee has engaged in any of the protected whistleblowing activity, or is perceived to have engaged in protected whistleblowing activity, under Labor Code section 1102.5.6 For example, if Bob's spouse, Jane, goes to Cal/OSHA to complain about Bob’s workplace conditions, Bob’s employer cannot retaliate against him because of Jane's activities.

California — Perceived Whistleblowers

Labor Code section 1102.5 also prohibits retaliation against employees because the employer believes the employee blew the whistle — even if the employee has not actually done so.

In addition to protections under the Labor Code, perceived whistleblowers are also protected by state public policy.7

One appellate court found that the public policy behind California’s whistleblower statute should protect employees who are mistakenly suspected of whistleblowing. The court noted that the purpose behind Labor Code section 1102.5 is to “encourage employees to notify an appropriate government or law enforcement agency when they have reason to believe their employer is violating laws.”

The court reasoned that protections should extend to employees suspected of whistleblowing so employees are not discouraged from bringing complaints. If you could lawfully fire an employee simply because you suspected they were going to file a complaint, it would certainly discourage employees from actually filing complaints.

California — Enforcement of Whistleblower Protections

A corporation or limited liability company is liable for a civil penalty not exceeding $10,000 for each violation, in addition to any other liabilities it may incur.8

Not only is the employer liable for a violation of the whistleblower protection law, but also:9

• A “client employer” — a specific definition related to companies who contract for labor, such as companies that use staffing agencies.10 See Contingent Workers.
• Any employer on a multiemployer worksite that exposed workers to hazardous conditions, created the hazard, was responsible for the health and safety of the worksite and/or was responsible for correcting the hazard.11

The law specifically exempts rules, regulations or policies that implement the confidentiality of the lawyer-client privilege, the physician-patient privilege, or trade secret information. Also exempt are actions by employers against employees who violate these rules.12

If the employee shows that their whistleblowing contributed to the alleged adverse employment action against the employee, burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee did not engage in protected activities.13

The Attorney General maintains a confidential whistleblower hotline to receive calls from people with information about possible violations of state or federal statutes, rules or regulations, or violations of fiduciary responsibility by a corporation or limited liability company to its shareholders, investors or employees. Hotline calls are referred to the appropriate government authority for review and possible investigation.

During the initial review of a call, the Attorney General or appropriate government agency must treat information that is disclosed through the whistleblower hotline, including the caller’s identity and the employer identified by the caller, as confidential.14

California — Required Whistleblower Posting

You must display a list of employees’ rights and responsibilities under the whistleblower laws. The poster must include the whistleblower hotline telephone number, and the poster font size must be greater than 14 point type. State agencies can comply with the posting requirement by displaying a notice pursuant to section 8548.2 of the Government Code or Subdivision (b) of section 6128 of the Penal Code.15

• This notice is included in a convenient all-in-one California and Federal Labor Law poster, with all required California and federal notices available from CalChamber.

Other State and Federal Whistleblower Statutes

Additional state and federal whistleblower laws protect employees who report various types of unlawful activity. See Anti-Retaliation Statutes for more information.

For example, in California, employees who complain that they are not being paid according to the state’s wage-and-hour laws are protected from retaliation.16 See Wage Order Enforcement and Penalties for more information.

The Legislative Employee Whistleblower Protection Act imposed civil and criminal liability on legislators or legislative employees who interfere with or retaliate against a legislative staffer who reports legal and ethical violations by legislators and fellow legislative staffers.17 This law protects good faith communications by a legislative employee alleging that a member of the Legislature or a legislative employee engaged in, or will engage in, activity that may constitute a violation of any law, including sexual harassment, or of a legislative code of conduct.18

The Legislative Discriminatory Harassment Retaliation Prevention Act strengthens protections against retaliation when legislative staffers and lobbyists report harassment and requires the Legislature to keep harassment complaint records for at least 12 years.19

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) also contains an anti-retaliation provision which protects employees who complain about violations of federal wage and hour laws. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a verbal complaint is sufficient to trigger the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provisions.20

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is charged with enforcing whistleblower protections of many separate statutes, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and safety statutes. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 protects employees who provide information or assist in investigations into conduct that the employee “reasonably believes” violates federal criminal law relating to:

• Mail or wire fraud
• Bank or securities fraud
• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations
• Federal laws protecting shareholders21

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act also protects people who testify or otherwise participate in prosecuting these types of violations.

The law protects employees of publicly traded companies and brokerage firms. The law prohibits retaliation or discrimination in employment, discharge and demotion or discipline. It protects employees from harassment or threats of adverse employment action.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protections should also be extended to cover employees of private companies that contract or subcontract with public companies.22

The Securities and Exchange Commission and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforce the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. For more information, see the OSHA Fact Sheet, Filing Whistleblower Complaints under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Limit to Federal Whistleblower Protection

Generally, federal law provides whistleblower protection to employees who disclose information revealing “any violation of law, rule or regulation,” or a “substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.”

There is an exception, however, for whistleblower disclosures that are “specifically prohibited by law.”

In one case, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed a fired air marshal to proceed with his whistleblower claim, finding that his disclosure was not specifically prohibited by law.23

Robert J. MacLean was a federal air marshal for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). In his role, MacLean was assigned to protect passenger flights from potential hijackings.

In 2003, MacLean contacted a reporter for MSNBC and told him that the TSA was cancelling overnight flights for air marshals in order to save money, even though TSA was in the midst of a hijacking alert. MacLean believed that cancelling those flights during a hijacking alert was dangerous and illegal, given that federal law required the TSA to put an air marshal on every flight that “present[s] high security risks.” He brought the story to the press after supervisors told him that nothing could be done.

MSNBC published the story, and the TSA drew criticism for its decision from members of Congress. Within 24 hours, the TSA reversed its decision and put air marshals back on the flights.

A few years after the report, TSA discovered that MacLean was the one who had contacted MSNBC. He was fired for disclosing sensitive security information without authorization. Government lawyers argued that MacLean was not entitled to whistleblower protections because TSA regulations prohibit employees from disclosing sensitive security measures.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that MacLean’s disclosures did not violate any federal law, just TSA regulations. The Court noted that the government had legitimate security concerns, but they must be addressed by the president through executive order or by Congress.

1. People ex rel. Garcia-Brower v. Kolla's, Inc., 529 P.3d 49 (Cal. 2023)

2. Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce Inc., 116 Cal.App.5th (2025)

3. Lab. Code sec. 1102.5(a-c)

4. Lab. Code sec. 1106

5. Lab. Code sec. 1102.5(e)

6. Lab. Code sec. 1102.5(h)

7. Diego v. Pilgrim United Church of Christ, 231 Cal. App. 4th 913 (2014)

8. Lab. Code sec. 1102.5 (f)

9. Lab. Code sec. 1102.5(i)

10. Lab. Code sec. 28103

11. Lab. Code sec. 6400

12. Lab. Code sec. 1102.5(g)

13. Lab. Code sec. 1102.6

14. Lab. Code sec. 1102.7 (a-c)

15. Lab. Code sec. 1102.8

16. Lab. Code sec. 98.6

17. Welfare and Institutions Code sec. 5525

18. Govt. Code sec. 9149.38-9149.41

19. Govt. Code sec. 9149.30-9149.36

20. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1 (2011) 47. 18 U.S.C. 1514A

21. 18 U.S.C. 1514A

22. Lawson v. FMR LLC, 571 U.S. 429 (2014)

23. Department of Homeland Sec. v. MacLean, 574 U.S. 383 (2015)