A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

How to fight wrongful termination after sexual harassment

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

Often, instead of recognizing that they have a problem manager or worker and taking steps to handle the issue, employers will punish an employee who reports sexual harassment. They may try to intimidate the victim through demotion, unwanted job transfer, denial of a deserved raise or other benefit, and so on.

These tactics can go so far as firing the person, simply because he or she spoke up about sexual harassment in the workplace. Though employers are allowed to fire “at-will” employees for nearly any reason, the law prevents termination for purposes of retaliation, or punishing a worker for reporting misconduct.

Firing someone for a reason that is not legally permissible is called wrongful termination. Victims of wrongful termination have the right under California law to sue for damages, such as lost wages.

As with many employment law cases, finding evidence can be difficult, even when you have good reason to believe you were wrongfully terminated. Knowing that firing someone in this way is against the law, employers are often careful to cover their tracks and keep their scheming behind closed doors.

However, you may still have access to evidence, even after you have been shown the door at work. Emails and other correspondence can suggest that you were fired for an impermissible reason, as well as work documents like an employment contract, if you had one. Also, former co-workers may have been witness to conversations and behavior that supports your claim.

An experienced employment law attorney knows where else to look for evidence of wrongful termination.

Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.