Seattle Jury Awards $98 Million in Unpaid Wages Verdict Against Providence Health & Services

In one of the largest wage-and-hour verdicts in recent years, a Seattle jury found Providence Health & Services liable for unpaid wages to thousands of hourly employees. The April 2024 decision highlights how small, routine wage violations (such as missed breaks or time clock rounding) can accumulate to substantial liability for employers and substantial back pay for workers.

Case: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

Court: King County Superior Court

Case No.: 21-2-13058-1 SEA

The Plaintiff: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

The plaintiffs in this case were hourly employees of Providence Health & Services. The group is one of the largest hospital systems in the United States. The case represented approximately 33,000 current and former employees who worked across Providence hospitals and healthcare facilities in Washington.

The Defendant: Providence Health & Services

Providence Health & Services is a major nonprofit healthcare organization with hospitals and medical centers throughout Washington and beyond. As an employer of tens of thousands of healthcare workers, Providence was accused of engaging in systemic wage-and-hour violations affecting thousands of nurses and staff.

A History of the Case: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

The lawsuit alleged Providence used practices that violated Washington wage laws, including:

• Failing to provide a legally required second meal break for employees working shifts longer than 10 hours.

• Using timekeeping systems that “rounded” employees’ work hours in ways that disproportionately benefited the employer.

For example, employees who clocked in a few minutes early or stayed a few minutes late often lost that time entirely under Providence’s rounding policies. Similarly, employees frequently worked through required breaks without being paid. After extensive litigation, a King County jury determined Providence willfully violated wage laws, awarding nearly $98 million in unpaid wages and damages.

The Main Question Being Considered: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

The key legal question was whether Providence’s timekeeping and break policies violated Washington wage law and deprived employees of earned wages. The case focused on whether the system of rounding and automatic deductions for breaks—even when breaks were not taken—constituted unlawful wage theft.

Even "Small" Labor Law Violations Should Not be Ignored

This case demonstrates that employers cannot dismiss small violations as insignificant. A few missed minutes or overlooked breaks, when applied across tens of thousands of employees, can result in significant liability. It also shows workers that they have the right to challenge unlawful wage practices—even in industries where working through breaks has been normalized.

FAQ: Bennett v. Providence Health & Services

Q: How much was the verdict against Providence Health & Services?

A: The jury awarded nearly $98 million in unpaid wages and damages.

Q: How many employees were affected by the lawsuit?

A: About 33,000 hourly employees across the Providence system in Washington were included in the class.

Q: What were the main violations alleged?

A: Missed meal breaks for long shifts and unlawful rounding practices that shaved minutes off employees’ work time.

Q: What does Washington law require for long shifts?

A: Employees working more than 10 hours should receive a second 30-minute meal break, in addition to standard rest breaks.

Q: Why is this verdict significant for workers?

A: It highlights that “small” violations (like shaving a few minutes or denying breaks) can result in large-scale wage theft and that workers have legal recourse.

Workers Should Take Note of Wage Violations

The Providence case is a strong reminder for California workers that wage violations are often systemic, so even seemingly small or insignificant violations are worth challenging. Small discrepancies in pay can add up over time, particularly when applied to thousands of employees.

If you believe your employer has failed to pay overtime, denied breaks, or used timekeeping systems that shortchange your wages, you should speak with an experienced wage and hour lawyer right away. Get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP, with offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

$100 Million Swift Transportation Misclassification Settlement: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

The trucking industry has seen some of the nation’s largest misclassification lawsuits, and Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation is no exception. After more than a decade of litigation, Swift Transportation agreed to a $100 million settlement resolving claims that it had misclassified thousands of drivers as “independent contractors” rather than employees. When examining the facts of the Van Dusen v. Swift case, the legal and financial risks employers face when sidestepping wage and hour laws through misclassification are evident.

Case: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

Case No.: CV 10-899-PHX-JWS

More About the Plaintiff: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

The plaintiffs were a group of approximately 20,000 truck drivers who alleged they were misclassified as independent contractors. Lead plaintiff Van Dusen and others argued that they performed the work of employees but were denied the same legal protections, such as overtime pay, reimbursement of expenses, and minimum wage guarantees.

The Defendant: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Swift Transportation is known as one of the largest trucking companies in the U.S. Swift utilizes a contractor model requiring drivers to lease their own trucks and pay for fuel, maintenance, and other business expenses directly, while still following Swift’s rules and schedules.

*Swift Transportation is now a part of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings.

A Case of Misclassification: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Filed in 2009, the Van Dusen v. Swift case quickly became one of the most fiercely contested misclassification cases in the transportation industry, with the plaintiffs alleging that Swift’s lease agreements and business practices created a form of economic coercion that trapped their drivers in unfair arrangements. Swift attempted to dismiss the lawsuit and pushed aggressively to enforce arbitration agreements, arguing that drivers had waived their rights to bring class claims in court. However, in a pivotal ruling, the courts determined that interstate truck drivers could not be compelled to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

After years of procedural battles and appeals, Swift ultimately agreed to a $100 million settlement in 2019 rather than risk a trial.

The Main Question Being Considered: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

At its core, the question was whether classifying drivers as “independent contractors” complied with labor law requirements. If Swift exercised enough control over the drivers’ work schedules, routes, and methods, then drivers were entitled to employee protections, including overtime and minimum wage.

Why This Case Matters: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

This case illustrates the high stakes of misclassification in industries where companies attempt to cut costs by calling workers “contractors.” The $100 million settlement is one of the largest of its kind and shows that:

• Labels do not determine employment status; courts look at the reality of the working relationship.

• Arbitration clauses cannot always shield employers from large collective actions.

• Misclassification schemes can push workers’ pay below minimum wage, creating liability for unpaid wages, damages, and penalties.

For truck drivers and other workers, the settlement reinforced their right to challenge exploitative “independent contractor” arrangements.

FAQ: Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation

Q: How much did Swift Transportation agree to pay in the settlement?

A: Swift agreed to pay $100 million to resolve the lawsuit.

Q: How many drivers were affected by the lawsuit?

A: Approximately 20,000 truck drivers were part of the class action.

Q: Why were the drivers misclassified?

A: Drivers were labeled “independent contractors” but had to follow Swift’s schedules and rules, wear its branding, and rely on Swift for work—hallmarks of employee status.

Q: Could Swift have forced the case into arbitration?

A: No. Courts ruled that interstate truckers are exempt from forced arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, allowing the case to proceed as a class action.

Q: What lesson does this case teach workers?

A: If your employer controls your work and schedule, you may be an employee regardless of being labeled a contractor, and you may be entitled to overtime and minimum wage protections.

Misclassification Can be a costly violation

The Van Dusen v. Swift Transportation settlement illustrates the significant costs associated with misclassification for employers and the importance of workers understanding their rights.

If you suspect you’ve been misclassified or denied overtime pay, contact the experienced employment attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP, with offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago. Our team is ready to review your situation and help you fight for the wages you’ve earned.

$130 Million Settlement Ends Wackenhut Security Meal & Rest Break Case

After nearly fifteen years of litigation, G4S Secure Solutions (formerly Wackenhut Corporation) agreed to pay up to $130 million to resolve a California wage-and-hour class action. The case alleged that thousands of security guards were denied legally required meal and rest breaks and received inaccurate wage statements. At the time, the settlement ranked among the largest wage-and-hour class settlements in California history.

Case: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: B244383

The Plaintiff: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

The plaintiffs were a class of approximately 13,500 nonexempt security officers employed by Wackenhut/G4S in California. They claimed the company’s policies routinely forced them to work through meal and rest breaks without proper compensation and failed to provide accurate wage statements.

The Defendant: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

The defendant, Wackenhut Corporation (later rebranded as G4S Secure Solutions), was one of the largest private security contractors in the United States. The company faced allegations that its policies violated California’s stringent wage and hour laws, exposing it to massive financial liability.

A History of the Case: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

• Plaintiffs originally filed suit alleging meal and rest break violations and inadequate wage statements.

• The trial court granted class certification, but later, after the Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision, Wackenhut moved for decertification.

• The trial court granted the decertification, but the plaintiffs appealed.

• The California appellate court held that the trial court misapplied Wal-Mart by extending its reasoning on statistical evidence too far. It reversed the decertification, allowing the class claims to proceed.

• Following further litigation and clarification of the use of statistical sampling in class actions, as seen in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, the case progressed toward settlement.

• On January 22, 2019, G4S agreed to pay between $100 million and $130 million to resolve the claims.

The Main Question Being Considered: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

The central question was whether Wackenhut/G4S’s policies denied security officers their legally mandated off-duty meal and rest breaks and whether statistical sampling could be used to prove widespread violations across the class.

Why This Case Matters: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

• It underscores the steep cost of failing to comply with California’s meal and rest break requirements.

• It clarified that class actions may rely on statistical evidence to demonstrate common violations when appropriate.

• For workers, the settlement represents one of the largest recoveries for missed break claims in California, affirming that wage protections apply even when an employee is technically off-duty.

• For employers, the case serves as a cautionary tale: ignoring California’s strict break and wage statement rules can result in substantial financial exposure.

FAQ: Lubin et al. v. Wackenhut Corp.

Q: How much did G4S agree to pay to settle the case?

 A: Up to $130 million, with payments covering back wages, penalties, and attorneys’ fees.

Q: How many workers were affected by this lawsuit?

 A: Approximately 13,500 security guards were employed in California during the nine years covered by the class action.

Q: What were the main violations alleged?

 A: Missed meal and rest breaks, on-duty meal periods without valid agreements, and inaccurate wage statements.

Q: Why did the trial court originally decertify the class?

 A: It relied on Wal-Mart v. Dukes to argue that statistical sampling could not be used; however, that reasoning was later rejected on appeal.

Q: What does California law require for meal and rest breaks?

 A: Nonexempt employees must receive a 30-minute off-duty meal break by the end of the 5th hour of work (and a second off-duty meal break by the 10th hour) and a paid 10-minute rest break every four hours. Employers who fail to provide them owe an additional hour of pay per violation.

If your California employer has denied you meal or rest breaks or pressured you to work through your legally protected break times, you may have legal claims. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP: our employment law attorneys in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago are ready to help.

The $233 Million Win for Anaheim Disney Theme Park Workers

To resolve a class action lawsuit alleging wage violations at Anaheim Disney theme parks and hotels, the company agreed to a $233 million settlement. The suit alleged Disney failed to comply with Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance (Measure L) for hourly and service charge-eligible workers since January 1, 2019. A judge recently approved the settlement, marking what many legal observers believe is one of the largest wage & hour class action recoveries in California history.

Case: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Court: Orange County Superior Court

Case No.: 30-2019-01116850-CU-OE-CXC

The Plaintiff: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Plaintiffs include Kathleen Grace, Regina Delgado, Alicia Grijalva, Javier Terrazas, and others who are current or former hourly workers at Disney theme parks and hotels in Anaheim. They allege Disney failed to pay them the minimum wage required under Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance, as well as related service charges, overtime, and full wages upon separation, among other violations.

The Defendant: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

The defendants are The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. They are accused of not adjusting wages in accordance with Anaheim’s LWO, despite benefiting from “City Subsidies” (such as tax rebates or reimbursement agreements) under agreements with the City, which the Court of Appeal found make them subject to the law.

A History of the Case: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Measure L (Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance) was passed by voters in 2018 and took effect on December 4, 2018. It requires certain hospitality employers, who benefit from city subsidies, to pay a progressively increasing wage, starting at $15/hr in 2019 and rising each year.

Plaintiffs filed the class action in December 2019.

In 2023, the California Court of Appeals held that Disney was subject to the LWO due to its subsidy arrangements.

After settlement negotiations, a proposed settlement was preliminarily approved, and in September 2025, the Orange County Superior Court granted final approval to the $233 million settlement.

The Main Question Being Considered: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

The question is whether Disney was legally required to comply with Anaheim’s LWO because it benefited from a “City Subsidy,” thus making it obligated to pay its hourly nonexempt employees the wages and service charges prescribed by the ordinance, including retroactive wages, penalties, and damages.

Why This Case Matters: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

This settlement is a precedent-setting example of how municipal living wage laws can hold large employers accountable, even when those employers argue for exemptions or non-coverage.

It demonstrates that “subsidy” agreements—such as tax rebates or reimbursement contracts tied to public infrastructure—can form the legal basis for requiring compliance with living wage ordinances.

For Disney workers, it means tens of thousands are receiving back pay and wage adjustments; for employers, it underscores that compliance with local wage laws isn’t optional if subsidy arrangements bring them under those laws.

FAQ: Grace et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.

Q: What was Measure L / the Anaheim Living Wage Ordinance?

A: A law passed by Anaheim voters in 2018 requiring certain hospitality employers receiving city subsidies to pay increasing minimum wages each year, starting at $15/hr in 2019.

Q: Are “City Subsidies” essential to subjecting Disney to Measure L?

A: Yes. The Court of Appeal ruled that Disney did benefit from “City Subsidies” under agreements with the City (e.g., tax rebates or reimbursement agreements), making the company subject to the wage requirements.

Q: How many workers are affected by this settlement?

A: Approximately 51,478 current and former Disneyland employees in Anaheim are part of the class.

Q: How much will workers receive from the settlement?

A: Of the $233 million total, about $179.6 million is allocated for back wages and related payments to class members; $17.5 million for penalties to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency; and $35 million in attorneys’ fees.

Q: Does Disney admit wrongdoing in this case?

A: No. The settlement explicitly states that it is not an admission of liability; rather, both sides agreed to settle to avoid the time, cost, and uncertainty of continued litigation.

If you have questions about filing a California class action or believe your employer has violated local wage ordinances or denied required wages or service charges, reach out to Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in their offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

FedEx’s $240 Million Settlement: Driver Misclassification and Overtime Rights

In 2016, FedEx Ground agreed to pay a $240 million settlement. One of the largest wage and hour settlements over the past decade, the settlement resolved cases in litigation across 20 states. The FedEx lawsuits alleged that the company misclassified thousands of workers across the nation. Classified as independent contractors, FedEx drivers were allegedly denied overtime pay, benefits, and other legal protections to which employees are entitled under state and federal employment law.

Case: Carlene M. Craig et al v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. et al

Court: District Court for the Northern District of Indiana

Case No.: 3:05-cv-00530-RLM-CAN

The Plaintiff: Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Carlene M. Craig and thousands of other FedEx drivers brought claims, arguing they were treated like employees in practice but denied the pay and benefits to which employees are entitled under the law. They alleged that FedEx’s contractor model was designed to cut costs while shifting the burden of employment expenses onto workers.

The Defendant: Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is the shipping giant’s ground delivery division. The company classified drivers as “independent contractors.” However, FedEx drivers were required to wear uniforms, follow company policies and procedures, and drive FedEx vehicles. By labeling drivers as contractors, FedEx avoided paying overtime, payroll taxes, and providing employee benefits.

A History of the Case: Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

The misclassification lawsuits were filed in multiple states beginning in the early 2000s. Courts repeatedly found that FedEx exerted significant control over drivers’ day-to-day work, making them employees under labor laws. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that FedEx drivers in Oregon and California did not meet the legal requirements and definitions of "independent contractor," but were, in fact, employees.

Facing mounting legal setbacks, FedEx agreed in 2016 to a $240 million global settlement covering claims in 20 states. The global settlement followed a $226 million settlement in California reached the year before, bringing FedEx’s total payouts in these cases to nearly $466 million.

The Main Question Being Considered: Craig v. FedEx

The central issue was whether FedEx drivers were truly independent contractors or employees. Courts evaluated the degree of control FedEx exercised over drivers’ schedules, uniforms, vehicles, and work methods. Ultimately, appellate rulings determined that FedEx’s level of control made drivers employees under the law, entitling them to overtime pay and other protections.

Why This Case Matters: Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

This settlement is a landmark in wage and hour law. It underscores that employers cannot simply label workers “independent contractors” to avoid legal responsibilities. For employees, the case demonstrates that overtime and wage protections apply based on the reality of the working relationship—not the title an employer uses. FedEx’s payout also forced the company to change its business model, shifting away from direct driver misclassification practices.

FAQ: Craig v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Q: What was the FedEx misclassification settlement about?

A: The settlement resolved claims that FedEx delivery drivers were misclassified, and that the misclassification as independent contractors denied drivers overtime pay and benefits.

Q: How much did FedEx agree to pay?

A: FedEx paid $240 million in 2016 to settle lawsuits in 20 states, on top of a $226 million California settlement the prior year.

Q: How many drivers were affected?

A: Approximately 12,000 FedEx Ground drivers shared in the settlement.

Q: What legal standard did courts use to decide the case?

A: Courts focused on the degree of control FedEx had over drivers’ uniforms, vehicles, schedules, and work methods, finding they were employees under labor law.

Q: Why does this case matter for workers today?

A: It shows that workers may be entitled to employee protections even if their employer labels them as contractors.

If you have questions about misclassification, overtime rights, or filing a California class action, contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to help at offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

California Wrongful Termination & Retaliation Claim: Jermaine Grandberry v. Northwest Pallet Services, LLC

While labor law has built-in protections for employees, in some instances, employers violate the rights of their own workers. Jermaine Grandberry, a former Northwest Pallet Services employee, claims that his employer violated labor law by retaliating and discriminating against him in response to his complaints about unsafe working conditions and discrimination in the workplace. In response, Grandberry filed a California lawsuit claiming wrongful termination, retaliation, and discrimination.

Case: Jermaine Grandberry v. Northwest Pallet Services, LLC

Court: San Bernardino County Superior Court

Case No.: BCV-19-101284

The Plaintiff: Former Northwest Pallet Services Worker

Jermaine Grandberry, the plaintiff, is a former employee of Northwest Pallet Services, LLC. Grandberry alleges that the company subjected him to workplace retaliation and wrongful termination after he reported unsafe working conditions and discriminatory practices on the job. Additionally, he claims that his concerns were made in good faith to protect the safety of himself and his co-workers.

The Defendant: Jermaine Grandberry v. Northwest Pallet Services

The defendant in the case is Northwest Pallet Services, LLC, a pallet recycling and distribution company. Grandberry claims the company actively retaliated against him after he reported workplace hazards (which is a legally protected activity).

History of the Case: Jermaine Grandberry v. Northwest Pallet Services, LLC

Grandberry allegedly reported unsafe workplace conditions (an action defined as a legally protected activity). According to the complaint, the company allegedly responded to his complaints with discriminatory treatment and retaliation, which led to his termination.

What is a Legally Protected Activity?

A legally protected activity for the purposes of labor law refers to an action taken by an employee to assert their rights or report potential violations of employment laws like discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. Actions taken to oppose discrimination include participating in a discrimination proceeding, seeking reasonable accommodations (based on disability or religious beliefs), reporting harassment or discrimination, etc.

The Main Question Being Considered in the Case:

The central issue in this case is whether Northwest Pallet Services terminated Grandberry because of his complaints. Doing so is an act of workplace retaliation in response to a protected workplace safety complaint and allegations of discrimination, thereby violating California labor laws and public policy.

Does This Case Matter to California Employees?

This case highlights California's robust legal protections for employees who report unsafe working conditions or discrimination on the job. Employers who retaliate against their workers when they make these types of reports could face significant legal liability that may come with hefty consequences. Employees should understand that retaliation for protected complaints is prohibited under California law.

FAQ: Jermaine Grandberry v. Northwest Pallet Services, LLC

Q: If a California employee reports unsafe working conditions, can they be fired?

A: No. Workplace retaliation in response to an employee reporting workplace safety concerns in good faith is prohibited under the California Labor Code.

Q: What laws protect California employees from retaliation?

A: California Labor Code §§ 1102.5 and 6310 protect employees from retaliation after they have submitted workplace safety or discrimination complaints.

Q: Does wrongful termination include retaliation claims?

A: Yes. If an employee is terminated due to protected complaints, it can constitute wrongful termination, and both violations can be included in the complaint.

Q: How soon should an employee act after being wrongfully terminated?

A: As quickly as possible as there are strict deadlines for filing claims under California law.

If you believe you've been wrongfully terminated or retaliated against after reporting unsafe working conditions or discrimination, our legal team can help. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our experienced Los Angeles employment law attorneys fight to protect the rights of workers across California, with offices serving clients in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.

Hearn v. PG&E: What California Employees Need to Know About Defamation Claims After Termination

When you’re fired from a job (especially if you believe it was wrongful), your first instinct might be to protect your reputation as well as your livelihood. Sometimes that means filing both a wrongful termination claim and a defamation claim. But a recent California Court of Appeals decision, Hearn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., shows why that strategy can be tricky.

The court made it clear: If your defamation claim is based on the same conduct that led to your termination, you likely won’t be able to recover damages for it.

Case: Hearn v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co

Court: Court of Appeal, California, First Appellate District Division Three

Case No.: A167742, A167991

Hearn v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co: A Brief History of the Case

Todd Hearn, a PG&E lineman, was suspended and later terminated after an internal investigation found discrepancies in his time records. The investigation included witness statements and GPS data.

Hearn sued PG&E, claiming:

• Retaliation for reporting safety violations (Labor Code § 1102.5)

• Retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions (Labor Code § 6310)

• Wrongful termination in violation of public policy

• Defamation

By the time the case reached trial, only the retaliation claim under § 1102.5 and the defamation claim remained. The jury sided with PG&E on retaliation but awarded Hearn damages for defamation. PG&E appealed.

The Court’s Decision: Hearn v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co

The California Court of Appeals reversed the defamation award, holding:

Defamation claims must be separate from termination conduct. If the alleged defamatory statements are part of the firing process—such as in investigative reports—they cannot be the basis for separate damages.

Damages must be distinct from job loss. You can’t recover reputational damages if they’re tied only to losing your job, without evidence of broader harm to your reputation outside the termination.

In Hearn’s case, the allegedly defamatory statements were made in the course of PG&E’s internal investigation and were directly tied to the termination decision, meaning the defamation claim couldn’t stand.

What California Workers Should Know About Hearn v. Pac. Gas & Elec.

If you’ve been wrongfully terminated, you may also feel your employer made false statements about you. But this ruling shows that when those statements are part of the termination process itself, your ability to claim separate defamation damages is limited.

Key points to remember: Wrongful Termination & Defamation Claims

Separate the issues. If you believe you were defamed, document instances where false statements were made outside of formal HR or disciplinary processes, especially if they were shared with people who did not need to know.

Look for harm beyond job loss. Rather than focus solely on the termination itself, you need to demonstrate specific reputational damages and lost job opportunities caused by the defamatory statements.

Act quickly. California’s statute of limitations for defamation is generally one year from the date the statement was made.

FAQ for Wrongfully Terminated Employees:

Q: Can I still sue for defamation if my employer made false statements during my firing?

A: Yes, but only if you can prove the statements went beyond what was necessary for the termination process and caused separate harm to your reputation.

Q: What kind of evidence helps in a defamation claim?

A: Copies of emails, written statements, or testimony from people who heard the false statements—especially if they were made outside HR or to people unrelated to your termination.

Q: What should I do first if I think this happened to me?

A: Consult an experienced employment attorney right away. They can help determine if your defamation claim is distinct enough from your termination claim to be viable.

If you believe you’ve been wrongfully terminated and defamed in California, our legal team can help. Contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP today. Our experienced Los Angeles employment law attorneys fight for California workers' rights, with offices serving clients in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago.