Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167; CACI No. 2430
Wrongful termination in violation of public policy — the Tameny claim
A claim in California superior courts · Last verified August 26, 2026
California employment is at will, which means an employer can fire you for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.
The Tameny claim is the exception: not for a reason that violates a fundamental public policy.
It is pleaded alongside FEHA claims constantly, and for three reasons. No administrative exhaustion — it goes straight to the superior court. Two years instead of one after the right-to-sue letter. And it is a tort, which opens emotional distress and punitive damages without FEHA's procedural gates.
There is one hard limit, and it is categorical: you cannot bring it against a public employer.
What the claim is
You were fired — or constructively discharged — for a reason that violates a fundamental, substantial, well-established public policy.
The recurring categories:
- Refusing to break the law at the employer's direction.
- Reporting illegal conduct, internally or to authorities.
- Exercising a statutory right — filing a workers' compensation claim, taking protected leave, serving on a jury.
- Performing a legal obligation.
Where the right comes from
A common-law tort recognised in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167, where an employee alleged he was fired for refusing to participate in an illegal price-fixing scheme.
The public policy must be tethered to positive law — a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision — and it must benefit the public at large, not just the individual employee. That limitation comes from Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083 and Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 880, and it is what keeps the tort from swallowing at-will employment.
What a plaintiff has to prove — CACI No. 2430
- An employment relationship.
- The employer discharged the plaintiff.
- A violation of public policy was a substantial motivating reason for the discharge.
- The plaintiff was harmed.
- The discharge was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
Constructive discharge counts, but the standard is demanding: the working conditions must have been so intolerable that a reasonable person would have had no reasonable alternative but to resign — Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1238. Ordinary unpleasantness does not qualify.
No heightened pleading applies.
How long you have to file
Two years, under CCP § 335.1 — it is a personal injury tort — running from the date of termination.
And it is not shortened by FEHA's one-year suit deadline. A plaintiff whose FEHA claim expired one year after the right-to-sue notice may still have a live Tameny claim on the same facts. That difference is one of the main practical reasons to plead both.
Constructive discharge accrues on resignation, not on when the intolerable conditions began.
What has to happen before you file
Nothing. No CRD complaint, no right-to-sue letter, no agency at all. The claim goes directly to the superior court.
That is the clearest procedural advantage over FEHA, and it means a plaintiff who blew the FEHA exhaustion requirement may still have this claim.
But there is a categorical exclusion, and it is not a curable gate.
Who can be sued — and who cannot
The employer.
Not individual supervisors. Reno v. Baird (1998) 18 Cal.4th 640 disposed of individual liability for the Tameny tort along with FEHA discrimination.
And not a public entity — at all. Government Code § 815 abolished common-law tort liability against public entities, and in Miklosy v. Regents of University of California (2008) 44 Cal.4th 876 the Supreme Court confirmed that a Tameny claim cannot be maintained against one.
This is a categorical exclusion, not a procedural gate. There is no claim to present, no deadline to meet, no cure. A public employee does not have this claim, and must use FEHA or a statutory whistleblower remedy instead.
That is the single most important thing on this page, because the Tameny claim's procedural advantages make it attractive to plaintiffs who are precisely the ones who cannot bring it.
Common defenses
No fundamental public policy identified — the most common and most effective. The policy must be tethered to a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision.
The policy is private rather than public — it protects the individual employee's interests rather than the public's. An internal company rule, or a statute benefiting only the employee, will not support the tort.
A legitimate reason for the discharge.
Public entity immunity, which is categorical.
The two-year period.
What the claim pays
Tort damages — which is the point.
Backpay and front pay. Emotional distress damages, uncapped. Punitive damages under Civil Code § 3294 on clear and convincing proof of oppression, fraud, or malice, subject to the § 3295 restriction on pretrial discovery of financial condition.
No fee-shifting. The American rule applies — unlike FEHA, which gives a prevailing plaintiff a one-way fee award. That is the trade: better deadlines and no exhaustion, but you pay your own lawyer unless a paired statutory claim supplies fees.
Jury trial: yes.
What people get wrong
"A Tameny claim works against any employer." It does not work against a public entity at all.
"Any unfair firing violates public policy." No. The policy must be fundamental, well-established, tethered to positive law, and for the benefit of the public.
"I can sue my manager for wrongful termination." Not individually.
"I missed the FEHA deadline, so everything's gone." Not necessarily. Tameny carries two years from termination and requires no exhaustion.
"It's a contract claim." It is a tort, and it requires no implied contract or promise of continued employment.
"I'll recover my attorney's fees." Not on this claim alone.
Where it came from
Before 1980, at-will employment in California was close to absolute. Tameny changed that by holding that an employer who fires someone for refusing to commit a crime commits a tort — not merely a breach of contract — because the interest being protected belongs to the public rather than to the parties.
The Supreme Court then spent two decades defining its limits. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654 and Gantt (1992) required the policy be tethered to positive law rather than to a court's sense of what is right, which prevented the tort from becoming a general wrongful-dismissal action. Miklosy (2008) confirmed it does not run against public entities.
The result is a claim that is narrow in what it covers and generous in what it provides — and whose procedural advantages over FEHA are its main practical reason for existing.
The claim expands as the Legislature acts. Every new statute establishing a public right creates a potential new public policy for a Tameny claim to rest on, which is why recent whistleblower and leave protections are worth watching.
Common questions
Do I have to file with an agency before bringing a wrongful termination claim?
No. Unlike FEHA, a Tameny claim requires no administrative exhaustion and goes directly to the superior court.
How long do I have?
Two years from the date of termination. That is longer than the one year FEHA allows after a right-to-sue notice, and FEHA's shorter period does not cut it down.
Can I bring this claim against a city, county, or school district?
No. Government Code § 815 bars common-law tort claims against public entities, and the California Supreme Court confirmed in Miklosy that a Tameny claim cannot be maintained against one. Public employees must use FEHA or a statutory whistleblower remedy.
What counts as a public policy?
One tethered to a constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision, that is fundamental and well-established, and that benefits the public rather than just you. Refusing to break the law and reporting illegal conduct are the clearest examples.
Can I recover my attorney's fees?
Not on this claim alone — the American rule applies. FEHA provides a one-way fee award, which is one reason the two are usually pleaded together.