What Does Substantial Motivating Reason Mean Under CACI 2620?
The Causation Question That Decides Most California Retaliation Trials
Key Takeaways: Under CACI 2620, the pattern instruction for CFRA retaliation, a plaintiff must prove that requesting or taking CFRA leave was a "substantial motivating reason" for the adverse action, meaning more than trivial or remote and actually contributing in a meaningful way, though not necessarily the only or main reason. This standard falls between the "contributing factor" test in certain whistleblower statutes and the "but-for" test in some federal claims. Because employers rarely admit retaliatory intent, most cases involve mixed motives, and a legitimate business reason does not automatically defeat the claim. However, proof that the same decision would have been made lawfully can sharply limit remedies under the same-decision rule in Harris v. City of Santa Monica. Juries infer motive from patterns: negative reactions to leave requests, abrupt performance changes, shifting explanations, favorable treatment of comparable employees, and uninvestigated complaints. Most claims require administrative filing with the Civil Rights Department within three years, with one year to sue after a right-to-sue notice.
When a California jury hears a CFRA retaliation case, the verdict often turns on a single phrase: "substantial motivating reason." Under CACI 2620, a plaintiff must prove that protected activity, such as requesting or taking family or medical leave, was more than trivial or remote in the employer’s decision. It must have contributed substantially to the adverse action, not necessarily the only or main reason, but more than a faint connection.
If your career ended shortly after requesting medical leave, the causation standard is where your case will likely be won or lost. The team at Kent | Pincin has extensive experience handling documented discrimination and retaliation matters in the South Bay. Call (310) 424-4991 or contact us now to discuss your situation.
Where CACI 2620 Fits in California Employment Law
CACI 2620 is the pattern jury instruction for retaliation for exercising California Family Rights Act leave rights. Related instructions cover interference with CFRA rights, while CACI 2500 series instructions govern FEHA discrimination and retaliation claims. Pattern instructions summarize appellate holdings; controlling authority remains statutory text and case law.
The statutory foundation is California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. Government Code § 12940 defines unlawful employment practices and prohibits discrimination against applicants, employees, or independent contractors based on protected characteristics. The Civil Rights Department notes that employers of five or more are generally subject to FEHA’s prohibition against employment discrimination.
Family and medical leave protections come from a separate statute. The Moore-Brown-Roberti Family Rights Act, commonly called CFRA, is codified principally at Government Code § 12945.2. A CFRA retaliation claim arises when an employer takes adverse action because an employee exercised, or sought to exercise, leave rights.
How CFRA Leave Interacts With Other Leave Entitlements
Understanding what counts as protected leave matters before analyzing causation. CFRA generally provides up to 12 workweeks of unpaid, job-protected leave in a 12-month period to eligible employees. Where an absence qualifies under both CFRA and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, the two entitlements ordinarily run concurrently. Pregnancy disability leave under California law is separate and does not run concurrently.
Documentation of the leave request often becomes the centerpiece of the case. Emails to human resources, medical certifications, and text messages with supervisors establish both the protected activity and the employer’s awareness, which is a prerequisite to causation.
Decoding CFRA Retaliation CACI 2620 and the Substantial Motivating Reason Element
The substantial motivating reason standard occupies a middle position between two more familiar causation tests. It requires more than showing the protected activity merely crossed the decision-maker’s mind, but less than showing it was the sole or determinative cause.
The standard is best understood by contrast with other California causation rules. Some whistleblower statutes apply a lower threshold. Under Labor Code § 1102.6, once the employee shows protected whistleblowing was a contributing factor, the employer must prove by clear and convincing evidence it would have taken the same action for legitimate, independent reasons. CFRA retaliation under CACI 2620 demands more than an incidental link.
| Causation Concept | General Threshold | Typical Context |
|---|---|---|
| Contributing factor | Lowest; any real role | Certain statutory whistleblower claims |
| Substantial motivating reason | Middle; more than trivial or remote | FEHA and CFRA claims under CACI 2620 |
| But-for or sole cause | Highest; outcome-determinative | Certain federal claims and defenses |
Because the standard is fact-intensive, outcomes vary considerably. Two employees terminated after leave requests may see different results depending on the paper trail, consistency of the employer’s reasons, and credibility of decision-makers.
Mixed Motives and the Employer’s Defense
Employers rarely announce a retaliatory reason, so most CFRA retaliation California cases involve competing explanations. A company may point to reorganization, a performance plan, or a policy violation. The existence of a legitimate reason does not automatically defeat the claim.
However, California law recognizes a significant limitation on remedies in mixed-motive cases. Under Harris v. City of Santa Monica, where an employer proves it would have made the same decision for lawful reasons alone, the employee generally cannot recover damages, backpay, or reinstatement, though declaratory or injunctive relief and attorney’s fees may remain available. This is one of the most consequential aspects of the doctrine and why careful case evaluation matters.
Evidence That Tends to Support a Substantial Motivating Reason Finding
Juries generally infer motive from patterns rather than single statements. Circumstantial evidence often carries the case, particularly when the employer’s explanation shifts. The most persuasive records usually combine several categories:
- Written communications showing supervisors reacting negatively to a leave request
- Abrupt changes in performance reviews after years of strong evaluations
- Inconsistent or evolving reasons given for the termination
- Comparable employees who were not on leave and were treated more favorably
- Internal complaints that were reported but never meaningfully investigated
Timing is frequently the most discussed category of circumstantial proof. Courts consider how closely the adverse action followed the protected activity, though closeness alone is generally insufficient to overcome a well-documented lawful explanation. For more on how temporal proximity in retaliation claims is analyzed, readers may review California court approaches.
💡 Pro Tip: Preserve your own copies of leave paperwork, performance reviews, and supervisor messages on a personal device before any employment change. Access to company systems is often cut off immediately upon termination.
Related Claims That Frequently Accompany CFRA Retaliation Cases
A leave-based retaliation claim rarely travels alone. Employees who request medical leave often also have disability discrimination claims, because the underlying condition may qualify as a disability. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits disability-based discrimination by private employers with 15 or more employees, and California’s disability protections are broader, applying to employers with five or more employees.
FEHA covers a wide range of protected characteristics beyond disability. The statute prohibits discrimination based on marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, and other categories. It is unlawful to discriminate against someone because of a FEHA-protected characteristic, which means one scenario may support several theories.
Pregnancy-related and harassment-based claims often overlap with leave retaliation. An employee who reported documented supervisor harassment and was then terminated may pursue both harassment and retaliation claims in the same action.
The Administrative Step Before a Lawsuit
Most FEHA and CFRA claims require administrative filing before a civil lawsuit may proceed. The California Civil Rights Department enforces the state’s civil rights laws and allows the public to submit complaints online and request right-to-sue notices for court filing.
The department’s jurisdiction is not unlimited. CRD handles employment complaints alleging discrimination, harassment, or retaliation under the laws it enforces, including FEHA and CFRA; wage claims generally fall to the Labor Commissioner. A claim for failure to prevent discrimination or harassment ordinarily requires prevailing on an underlying claim of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, as reflected in the harassment prevention regulation.
Deadlines are strict and should not be assumed flexible. A FEHA or CFRA administrative complaint generally must be filed with CRD within three years of the alleged unlawful conduct, and once a right-to-sue notice issues, a civil action generally must be filed within one year; parallel federal claims can carry much shorter windows, including 90 days after an EEOC right-to-sue notice. Anyone weighing options should speak with a cfra retaliation caci 2620 lawyer well before any deadline approaches.
💡 Pro Tip: Note the exact date on any right-to-sue notice you receive and treat it as the start of a firm filing window, not a suggestion.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Does substantial motivating reason mean my leave had to be the only reason I was fired?
No. Under CACI 2620, the protected activity does not need to be the sole or primary reason. It must have been a substantial motivating reason rather than trivial or remote, and the employer may still assert that lawful reasons independently justified the decision, which, if proven, can significantly limit remedies.
2. How does the substantial motivating reason test differ from a motivating factor test?
The motivating factor formulation generally asks only whether the improper consideration played some role. The substantial motivating reason standard adds a materiality requirement, requiring that the protected activity actually contributed meaningfully to the decision.
3. What if my employer says my position was eliminated in a restructuring?
A restructuring explanation does not end the analysis. Courts and juries may consider whether similarly situated employees were retained, whether timing aligns suspiciously with your leave, and whether the employer’s justification changed over time.
4. Do CFRA protections apply to every employer in California?
No. FEHA’s discrimination prohibitions generally reach employers with five or more employees, and CFRA leave now applies to employers of five or more, but an employee must also have worked at least 12 months and 1,250 hours to be eligible.
5. Should I file with the Civil Rights Department or go straight to court?
In most cases, an administrative filing precedes a civil action for FEHA and CFRA claims. Many employees consult a California employment attorney before filing to avoid procedural missteps.
Why the Causation Standard Deserves Careful Attention
The substantial motivating reason element is the doctrinal hinge of nearly every CFRA leave retaliation case tried in California. It sets a meaningful threshold that accounts for the reality that employment decisions often have several drivers. For an employee terminated soon after requesting leave, the strength of the documentary record frequently determines whether that threshold is met.
If you believe your leave request or protected complaint played a role in your termination, a timely case evaluation can help clarify your options. Reach out to Kent | Pincin by calling (310) 424-4991 or schedule a consultation today to have your situation reviewed by a Redondo Beach employment lawyer.