- Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
- - SE HABLA ESPAÑOL
- Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week
- - SE HABLA ESPAÑOL
Most workers who suspect they are misclassified — as an exempt salaried employee, or as a 1099 independent contractor — think the question is “how do I get reclassified and recover unpaid wages.” That is a wage-and-hour question, and California’s DLSE process and PAGA framework are built to handle it. The wrongful-termination question is different. It begins the moment your employer’s response to a misclassification complaint is to push you out — termination, demotion, schedule reductions, removal from accounts, or constructive discharge.
Under California Labor Code §1102.5, an employee who reports a suspected legal violation to a supervisor, manager, or government agency is protected from retaliation. Misclassification under AB5 (codified at Labor Code §2775) is a suspected legal violation. When an employer fires the worker who raised the issue, the cause of action shifts from a wage-and-hour claim to a wrongful-termination claim. The misclassification becomes the predicate; the firing becomes the case.
The patterns repeat across industries — gig economy, construction, healthcare, sales, white-collar professional services. A worker raises the classification issue, and one of these follows.
employment
Personal Injury
A direct misclassification wage claim turns on the ABC test (Labor Code §2775, codifying Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903), the recoverable back wages, and statutory penalties under §226.8 ($5,000–$25,000 per willful misclassification). The DLSE handles those cases. The damages are bounded by what was misclassified and for how long.
A wrongful-termination case driven by a misclassification dispute is different. It turns on the link between when you raised the classification issue and what your employer did next. The evidence shifts from time records and the work-relationship analysis to personnel files, comparator-employee records, witness statements, and the timeline of events. The damages model expands to lost wages from termination through trial, future earnings, lost benefits, emotional distress damages under Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, and — where the employer acted with malice or oppression — punitive damages under Civil Code §3294.
Different proof, different witnesses, different trial strategy. A firm that handles only wage-and-hour collection work is the wrong fit. We pursue the wrongful-termination claim and use the underlying misclassification dispute as predicate.
Mercer Legal Group is headquartered in Los Angeles, California. Our practice is built around employees who were fired, demoted, or pushed out for asserting workplace rights — retaliation, wrongful termination, harassment, and discrimination. We do not represent workers in pure wage-and-hour misclassification recovery actions; PAGA-style class actions and DLSE practice are different kinds of work.
What we do is take the conduct that drove an employer to retaliate against a classification complaint — and prosecute the wrongful termination that followed. Our managing attorney, Simon Moshkovich, has tried California employment cases to verdict and represents workers across industries, from gig-economy and construction to healthcare and salaried professional services, throughout Los Angeles, Long Beach, Riverside, San Bernardino, and the broader Southern California region.
California’s worker-classification rules run deeper than the federal floor. AB5, codified at Labor Code §2775, presumes a worker is an employee unless the hiring entity proves all three prongs of the ABC test: (A) the worker is free from the hiring entity’s control and direction in connection with the performance of the work, (B) the work performed is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed. The rule comes from Dynamex Operations W., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 and was codified into statute in 2019. Labor Code §2776 carves out narrow statutory exemptions; most workers do not fall inside them.
The damages model in a wrongful-termination case tied to a misclassification dispute is materially larger than the underlying wage claim:
A pure misclassification wage claim recovers what was misclassified. A wrongful-termination plaintiff who was fired over the same dispute can recover months or years of compensation, the underlying wage component as predicate, emotional distress, and potentially punitives. The cause of action drives the math. Statute of limitations: §1102.5 — three years from the adverse action under AB 1947. Tameny common-law wrongful-termination — two years. The underlying misclassification wage claim has its own deadlines (three years for statutory wage claims; PAGA has a one-year filing window with a 65-day notice period).
If you were fired, demoted, or pushed out after raising an employee-classification dispute, Mercer Legal Group can evaluate your wrongful-termination case. We handle these matters on a contingency basis — no fee unless we recover. Call 213-985-3909 or fill out the case-evaluation form on this page.
It can be. California courts treat temporal proximity — the gap between the protected activity (raising the misclassification issue) and the adverse action (non-renewal) — as circumstantial evidence of causation. A two-week gap is short enough to support an inference of retaliation. The next question is whether the employer’s stated reason holds up against the documentary record: was the non-renewal pre-planned, does the timing match the normal renewal cycle, are other contractors being non-renewed for the same stated reason. A “contract just ended” rationale that appears only after a misclassification complaint, and only against the complaining contractor, is the pattern pretext is built from.
Possibly. Raising that your exempt-status classification does not match your actual duties is a protected complaint under §1102.5 when the underlying conduct (improper exempt classification denying overtime) violates California wage law. Putting an employee on a performance improvement plan one week after the complaint, with no prior performance history, can support a pretext argument and strengthen a retaliation claim. The documentary record matters: when were prior performance issues raised, were other “managers” treated the same way, does the PIP’s stated criteria align with the job description.
Section 1102.5 can also protect certain internal reports to supervisors or managers when the employee reports a suspected legal violation. A formal Labor Commissioner filing is not required for the protection to attach. Section 98.6 also protects internal complaints — telling a supervisor, raising the issue in a team meeting, or putting it in an email or HR portal.
Sometimes. A claim does not require termination if there has been another materially adverse action — a substantial reduction in work assignments that effectively zeros out earning capacity, removal from accounts in a pattern timed to the complaint, or hostile work conditions amounting to constructive discharge. The conduct has to be material, not merely uncomfortable. We evaluate borderline situations during intake and tell you honestly whether what you are facing rises to actionable.
“Restructuring” is the most common pretext defense in misclassification-driven cases. The case is built on what the documentary record actually shows: was the restructuring announced before the complaint, are other workers in similar roles being terminated as part of the same restructuring, does the personnel file support the explanation, and does the timing match an announced reorganization that pre-dates the complaint. A restructuring that appears only after the protected activity, and only affects the complaining worker, is exactly the documentary pattern that supports a retaliation claim.
