Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy in California (Tameny Claim)
Even in an at-will job, California recognizes a narrow but powerful wrongful termination claim when an employer fires an employee for a reason that violates a fundamental public policy. This is often called a “Tameny” claim after a California Supreme Court decision.
On this page
Quick overview
What a “public policy” wrongful termination claim is
A wrongful termination claim based on public policy is a common-law tort claim. In plain terms, it alleges the employer fired the employee for a reason that violates a fundamental policy reflected in law. The doctrine is often associated with “Tameny claims” because of Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
Later California Supreme Court cases discuss what makes a public policy “fundamental,” and what types of sources can support the policy, including statutes and certain regulations in appropriate circumstances.
What counts as a “fundamental public policy”
Courts look for a policy that is clearly articulated and important to the public, not merely a private workplace rule. In practice, the policy is commonly anchored in:
- Statutes that protect employees (for example, anti-discrimination, anti-retaliation, safety, wage protections).
- Constitutional provisions in some circumstances.
- Regulations that reflect fundamental public policy in some cases, as discussed by the California Supreme Court in Green v. Ralee Engineering Co.
Common fact patterns
Public-policy wrongful termination claims often appear in scenarios such as:
- Refusing to participate in illegal conduct and being fired for the refusal (the type of allegation described in Tameny).
- Reporting safety or compliance concerns tied to a public safety regime (discussed in Green).
- Discrimination terminations where a fundamental anti-discrimination public policy is at issue (discussed in Stevenson).
- Retaliation for engaging in activity protected by statute or public policy.
These are examples only. The outcome can depend heavily on documentation, timing, credibility, and the policy source used.
What usually must be proven
California Civil Jury Instructions include an instruction for “Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy” that lays out an elements framework used in civil trials.
Evidence that often matters
- Timeline: when you raised concerns, refused conduct, requested protected rights, and when discipline or termination happened.
- Written communications: emails, texts, HR tickets, complaint reports, meeting notes.
- The policy source: the specific statute, regulation, or legal duty you rely on.
- Comparators: how others were treated for similar performance or conduct issues.
- Employer stated reason: separation paperwork, performance write-ups, investigations, and consistency with past practice.
Common remedies and damages
Public-policy wrongful termination is generally treated as a tort theory under California law and can allow broader remedies than a pure contract claim, depending on the circumstances. The available damages depend on the claims asserted and the facts.
Frequently asked questions
What is a “Tameny” claim?
It is a wrongful termination claim alleging the employer discharged the employee for a reason that violates a fundamental public policy, named after Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
Is this the same as a breach of contract claim?
No. Breach of contract focuses on violating contract terms. A public policy claim focuses on discharge that contravenes a fundamental policy grounded in law. Some cases include both theories.
Does the public policy have to be written in a statute?
Not always. California Supreme Court decisions discuss how statutes and, in some cases, regulations can articulate policy, depending on the context. Review Green in the sources below.
Can discrimination support a public policy wrongful termination claim?
California Supreme Court decisions discuss public policy claims tied to anti-discrimination policy, including in Stevenson (see sources below).
What if my employer gives a “performance” reason?
Employers commonly claim lawful reasons. Disputes often turn on documentation, timing, consistency, and whether the protected reason was a motivating factor.
How long do I have to bring a claim?
Legal deadlines vary by claim type and procedure. An attorney cannot confirm the applicable deadline without reviewing the facts and the legal basis for the claim. If timing is a concern, get advice quickly.
Primary sources
Links are provided so readers can verify the authorities referenced on this page.
- California Supreme Court: Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980): https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/tameny-v-atlantic-richfield-co-28166
- California Supreme Court: Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998): https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/green-v-ralee-engineering-co-31934
- California Supreme Court: Stevenson v. Superior Court (Huntington Memorial Hospital) (1997): https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/stevenson-v-superior-court-huntington-memorial-hospital-31818
- Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 2430 (Justia mirror): https://www.justia.com/trials-litigation/docs/caci/2400/2430/
- California Labor Code section 2922 (California Legislative Information): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB§ionNum=2922
