- Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
- - SE HABLA ESPAÑOL
- Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
- - SE HABLA ESPAÑOL
Fired, harassed, discriminated against, retaliated against, or short-paid by a San Francisco employer? Mercer Legal Group is headquartered in Los Angeles, California and represents San Francisco workers in wrongful termination, retaliation, discrimination, harassment, FMLA/CFRA, and executive-comp disputes under California Labor Code, FEHA, federal employment statutes, and San Francisco’s local labor ordinances. Free, confidential case review. SE HABLA ESPAÑOL.
NYU Law & NYU Stern · Skadden & Latham alumni · No-charge consultation · Employment law only · Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Or call us directly
A San Francisco employee dealing with a workplace dispute — discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation, an executive-comp or RSU dispute, or a denied accommodation — has rights under California law, plus additional protections under San Francisco’s local ordinances. The hard part is knowing whether what happened to you is actually actionable, what evidence to preserve, and which deadlines are running. That is where an employment lawyer matters. Contact our San Francisco employment lawyers today for a free consultation.
Mercer Legal Group is a California employment law firm that represents workers and only workers — never employers. The firm is headquartered in Los Angeles, California and serves San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area, including the Financial District, SOMA, Mission, Marina, Castro, Pacific Heights, Sunset, Richmond, Bayview, Potrero Hill, and Treasure Island. Every San Francisco intake lands on a senior attorney’s desk for an honest read, not a paralegal screen.
San Francisco workplaces span the full range of California employment risk — technology and AI in SOMA and Mission Bay (Salesforce, Uber, Lyft, Square / Block, Airbnb, Dropbox, Twitter / X, OpenAI, Anthropic, Pinterest), financial services downtown (Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Charles Schwab, BlackRock, KKR, Visa), professional services and consulting (McKinsey, Deloitte, EY, big-law SF offices), healthcare across UCSF Medical Center, Kaiser Permanente, Sutter Health, and Dignity Health facilities, retail and hospitality across Union Square and Fisherman’s Wharf, and a sustained biotech presence in Mission Bay (Genentech, Pfizer SF). The most common San Francisco employment disputes we see fall into a small number of patterns: wrongful termination after a discrimination or harassment complaint, retaliation for raising wage or stock-comp disputes, RSU and equity-vesting issues tied to firing or constructive discharge, FMLA/CFRA-driven terminations, and constructive discharge from hostile work conditions.
California’s protections run deeper than the federal floor, and San Francisco layers additional local protections on top. The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Government Code §12940 et seq.) covers more protected categories and more employer sizes than Title VII. Labor Code §1102.5 protects whistleblowers who report violations internally. Labor Code §98.6 prohibits retaliation for asserting any Labor Code right. The Tameny common-law wrongful-termination claim (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167) applies when the firing was tied to a fundamental public policy. San Francisco-specific ordinances enforced by the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) add the Health Care Security Ordinance (HCSO), the Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, the Fair Chance Ordinance (restricting use of criminal-history information), and the Family Friendly Workplace Ordinance (right-to-request flexible/predictable schedules).
A lawyer who works California employment cases daily knows the San Francisco County Superior Court (Civic Center Courthouse, 400 McAllister Street) where SF employment matters are heard, the federal Northern District of California (Phillip Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue), the local mediators who handle these cases, and the negotiation patterns of HR teams at the dominant local employers across tech, finance, and healthcare. If you are unsure whether what happened to you crosses the line, a brief, no-cost call usually answers the threshold question — see our writeup on do I need an employment lawyer for a longer framework.
The case types below cover the bulk of what San Francisco workers come to us about. Each one has its own evidence pattern and its own damages model. The right cause of action is the one the facts will actually carry to trial.
Employment discrimination in a San Francisco workplace means an employer treated you worse than similarly-situated co-workers because of a protected characteristic — race, gender, age, disability, pregnancy, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The conduct can be a single material event (a firing, a demotion, a denied promotion) or a pattern over time. California FEHA applies to employers with 5 or more employees — broader than federal Title VII, which requires 15. San Francisco’s local ordinances extend some protections to even smaller employers.
Proving discrimination is usually circumstantial. There is rarely a smoking-gun email. Instead, the case is built on the timeline, comparator-employee records, the personnel file, and inconsistencies in the employer’s stated reasons. We walk through the standard framework in our guide on how to prove employment discrimination in California.
Sexual harassment in a San Francisco workplace can be quid pro quo (a supervisor conditioning a job benefit on a sexual demand) or hostile work environment (unwelcome conduct severe or pervasive enough to alter working conditions). California FEHA covers harassment by supervisors, co-workers, and third parties such as customers, clients, or vendors. SB 331 (Silenced No More Act, 2022) voids NDA provisions that try to silence harassment claims, so a prior severance NDA does not necessarily bar your case — a point that matters in the SF tech-and-finance world where severance NDAs are routine.
The first steps are documenting incidents and identifying witnesses, then escalating through internal channels where appropriate, then preserving evidence before deleting it. Our writeup on how a lawyer helps victims of workplace sexual harassment covers the typical evidence and damages framework.
Free case review for San Francisco workers. Honest read on whether the claim has a real path to recovery — not a sales pitch.
Our work for a San Francisco employment client breaks into four phases. The phases overlap in practice, but they are useful as a map.
When a San Francisco employee raises an unpaid-overtime, missed-break, misclassification, or other wage concern — internally to HR, externally to the California Labor Commissioner, or to the SF Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (OLSE) — that complaint is protected activity under Labor Code §1102.5 and §98.6. If the employer responds by firing, demoting, or pushing the worker out, Mercer Legal Group pursues the retaliation claim. The underlying wage recovery itself runs through the DLSE or PAGA-class firms; we are not those lawyers. We take the retaliation. For background on the wage-side mechanics see how lawyers for overtime help employees fight for fair compensation.
Most plaintiff-side employment firms are built for volume — hundreds of open cases, rotating attorneys, intake forms that screen 90% of callers out. This is not that. Mercer Legal Group runs a senior-attention model for San Francisco workers, built around the patterns that show up disproportionately in SF tech, finance, and biotech: RSU vesting cliffs timed to terminations, severance NDAs voided by SB 331, retention-bonus clawback disputes, and post-acquisition reductions in force that mask retaliation against a specific complainant. Here is what the process actually looks like.
Most San Francisco employment cases are taken on a contingency-fee basis: the firm only recovers if you recover. Typical California employment contingency fees range from one-third to 40% of the gross recovery, depending on the stage at which the case resolves. Out-of-pocket costs (filing fees, deposition costs, expert fees) are usually advanced by the firm and reimbursed from the recovery. Hourly billing is less common in plaintiff-side employment work but is used for discrete matters such as severance review or non-compete defense. For executive-comp matters with substantial equity components, hybrid fee arrangements are sometimes used. For a longer breakdown of cost structures see our guide on how much does a discrimination lawyer cost in California.
Different employment claims have different proof standards, damages, and timelines. The table below is a high-level San Francisco reference — every case turns on its specific facts.
| Claim Type | Description | Potential Remedies | Typical Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discrimination | Adverse treatment based on a protected category (race, gender, age, disability, pregnancy, etc.) under FEHA §12940 | Back pay, front pay, emotional distress, attorney’s fees, punitive damages | 12–24 months |
| Harassment | Hostile work environment or quid pro quo harassment; sexual or based on protected category | Back pay, emotional distress, punitive damages; injunctive relief | 12–24 months |
| Retaliation | Adverse action for protected activity (Labor Code §1102.5, §98.6, FEHA §12940(h)) — see our writeup on the legal ramifications of EEOC retaliation claims | Back pay, front pay, $10,000 civil penalty per violation, attorney’s fees | 12–24 months |
| Wrongful Termination | Firing in violation of public policy (Tameny) or in breach of express/implied contract | Back pay, front pay, emotional distress, punitive damages (Civ Code §3294) | 12–30 months |
| FMLA / CFRA Violations | Denied leave, retaliation for taking leave, failure to reinstate | Back pay, front pay, reinstatement, liquidated damages, attorney’s fees | 9–18 months |
The bulk of California plaintiff-side employment work in San Francisco falls into discrimination (FEHA Gov Code §12940), workplace harassment including sexual harassment, retaliation and whistleblower claims (Labor Code §1102.5 and §98.6), wrongful termination (Tameny common-law and contract-based), retaliation tied to wage-and-hour complaints (firing after a worker raises unpaid overtime, missed breaks, or misclassification — the retaliation is what we pursue; the wage recovery itself runs through the DLSE), FMLA/CFRA leave violations, and — particularly common in SF — RSU and equity-vesting disputes, severance and NDA disputes (now affected by SB 331), and violations of San Francisco-specific local ordinances enforced by the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (HCSO, Paid Sick Leave, Fair Chance, Family Friendly Workplace). We take all of these for San Francisco workers.
San Francisco County Superior Court runs longer than the California average due to court congestion. Most SF employment cases resolve in 12–24 months. The FEHA administrative exhaustion step (filing with the California Civil Rights Department, then obtaining a right-to-sue notice) typically takes 1–4 months. Pre-litigation settlement, when it works, can close a case in 3–6 months total. Cases that go through full discovery and mediation usually run 14–20 months in SF. Cases tried to verdict run 24–36 months. The federal Northern District of California in SF tracks similar timelines.
Yes. California is an at-will employment state, but at-will termination does not authorize firing in violation of public policy. The Tameny common-law claim (Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167) is available when the firing was tied to a fundamental California public policy — refusing to commit an illegal act, reporting a legal violation, asserting a Labor Code right, or based on a FEHA protected category. Most SF wrongful-termination cases are public-policy claims with damages that include back pay, front pay, emotional distress under Tameny, and — where the conduct was malicious or oppressive — punitive damages under Civil Code §3294. For SF tech workers, the damages can also include lost RSU vesting, exit-grant disputes, and unvested equity.
It can be. California law treats earned compensation as wages once vested under the terms of the grant agreement. Firing an employee specifically to avoid paying RSUs that are about to vest can support both a wage-claim and a wrongful-termination or retaliation claim, depending on the facts. The case is built on the timeline between the protected activity (a complaint, a leave request, a discrimination issue) and the firing, the vesting schedule in the grant agreement, and the employer’s stated reason for the termination tested against the documentary record. This is a common pattern in SF tech and we handle these disputes regularly.
Most plaintiff-side California employment lawyers work on a contingency-fee basis — no fee unless we recover. Typical contingency rates range from one-third to 40% of the gross recovery depending on the stage at which the case resolves. Out-of-pocket costs (court filing fees, deposition costs, expert witness fees) are usually advanced by the firm and reimbursed from the recovery. Hourly billing is less common but is used for discrete matters such as severance review, non-compete defense, or executive-comp analysis. For complex equity-comp disputes typical in SF tech, hybrid arrangements (reduced contingency plus hourly on the equity component) are sometimes negotiated. Initial consultations are free. For a longer breakdown see our guide on how much does a discrimination lawyer cost in California.
Call or send a note through the contact form. Two or three sentences on what happened and roughly when is enough to schedule the call.
Simon or a senior attorney works the facts on the call and gives a direct read: viable claim, weak claim, or no claim. No pitch. If the case has merit, the attorney lays out the likely framework — causes of action, evidence to preserve, and damages model.
If the case has merit, the firm tells you exactly what to preserve — email threads, Slack messages, performance reviews, pay records, equity grant documents, witness contact info, the personnel file you have a statutory right to under Labor Code §1198.5 — and what NOT to send or post.
Once the record is built, the choice is yours: accept the best settlement the file will support, or push the case to trial. We share the analysis behind both paths and let you make the call.
Free, confidential review. Every San Francisco intake lands on a senior attorney’s desk for an honest read on whether the claim has a real path. SE HABLA ESPAÑOL.
Legal Disclaimer: The information on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this page, contacting the firm, or sending information through the case-evaluation form does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every employment case turns on its specific facts, and outcomes vary. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Mercer Legal Group is a California-licensed law firm; this site is not intended as solicitation in jurisdictions where the firm is not licensed. To discuss your specific situation, schedule a free confidential consultation.
Responsible attorney: Simon Moshkovich, California State Bar No. 323584. Mercer Legal Group, 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 103, Woodland Hills, CA 91364.
