Can You Win a Discrimination Case If Bias Was Only One Reason You Were Fired?
When Bias Is One of Several Reasons for a Firing
Key Takeaways: Yes, under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), you may be able to win a discrimination case even when bias was only one of several reasons you were fired. Under CACI 2507 and Harris v. City of Santa Monica, a protected trait or activity must have been a "substantial motivating reason" for the firing. That means more than a remote or trivial factor, but not necessarily the only or main cause. FEHA protects both who you are, such as your age, disability, or sex, and what you do, such as reporting harassment, taking medical leave, or asking for religious accommodation. If the employer proves it would have made the same decision anyway for lawful reasons, that same-decision defense generally bars damages, back pay, and reinstatement. Strong evidence often includes timing, past performance reviews, shifting explanations, and messages from supervisors. Be careful before signing any release or severance agreement, because a valid release can give up claims you did not know you had.
Yes, under California law you may be able to win a discrimination case even when bias was only one of several reasons you were fired. Employers rarely admit to discrimination. More often, they point to a performance review, a reorganization, or a missed target. Under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), the question is generally whether a protected trait or protected activity was a substantial motivating reason for the decision. It does not have to be the only reason. Consider a 30-year, six-figure employee at a large corporation who is fired weeks after asking for medical leave, while the company cites "restructuring." A legitimate-sounding reason does not end the analysis. It is often where the analysis starts.
If you suspect bias played a part in your termination, an early review of your documents and timeline may help you understand your options. Kent | Pincin works with Redondo Beach employees facing discrimination and retaliation by large employers. Call (310) 424-4991 or schedule a confidential consultation to talk through what happened.
How California FEHA Defines Illegal Termination
California FEHA makes it unlawful for an employer to fire someone "because of" a protected trait. Under Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a), the protected traits include race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, reproductive health decisionmaking, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age (40 and over), sexual orientation, and military and veteran status. FEHA’s discrimination provisions generally apply to employers with five or more employees. You can review the full text of the California FEHA employment provisions on the Legislature’s website.
The statute reaches beyond termination. Section 12940(a) also bars refusing to hire, refusing to select someone for a training program, and discriminating in pay or in the "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." An employee may therefore have a claim over a demotion, a pay cut, or denied training.
Protected Activity Counts Too
FEHA and related California statutes also protect what you do, not just who you are. Several provisions commonly arise in mixed-reason firings:
- Retaliation: Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(h) bars firing or discriminating against someone because they opposed practices FEHA forbids, or filed a complaint, testified, or assisted in a FEHA proceeding.
- Family and medical leave: Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.2(k) makes it unlawful to fire or discriminate against someone for using California Family Rights Act (CFRA) leave.
- Religious accommodation: Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(l)(1) bars firing someone over a conflict between religious observance and a job requirement, unless the employer cannot accommodate without undue hardship. Section 12940(l)(4) also prohibits retaliating against someone for requesting an accommodation.
An employee who reported sexual harassment by a supervisor and was then fired for a mix of stated reasons may have both a discrimination claim and a retaliation claim. Courts evaluate each claim separately.
What CACI 2507 Means for Mixed-Motive Firings
CACI 2507 is the California civil jury instruction that explains what "because of" means in a FEHA discrimination case. It tells jurors that the plaintiff must prove the protected characteristic was a "substantial motivating reason" for the adverse action. The instruction is designed for cases where an employer may have had more than one motive.
Substantial Motivating Reason vs. Remote or Trivial Reason
A substantial motivating reason is one that actually contributed to the decision. CACI 2507 explains that it must be more than a "remote or trivial reason." Bias need not be the only cause or the main cause, but it must be more than a minor or distant factor. The California Supreme Court adopted this standard in Harris v. City of Santa Monica (2013) 56 Cal.4th 203, reasoning that it fits FEHA’s goal of preventing discrimination without holding employers liable for discriminatory thoughts that did not meaningfully affect the decision. For a deeper look at how California defines a substantial motivating reason in the retaliation context, see our related article on CACI 2620.
| Factor Type | How It Is Treated | Practical Example |
|---|---|---|
| Substantial motivating reason | May support FEHA liability | Termination memo drafted days after a disability disclosure |
| Remote or trivial reason | Generally insufficient alone | A single offhand comment years before the firing |
| Legitimate business reason | May coexist with bias; does not automatically defeat the claim, but may support a same-decision defense | Documented sales decline cited alongside a leave request |
How California Compares to Federal Law
Federal law uses different standards, which is one reason California claims are often analyzed under FEHA first. Under federal Title VII, plaintiffs may show that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was "a motivating factor" (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m)). However, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal age claims under the ADEA require "but-for" causation. FEHA applies its substantial motivating reason standard across protected traits, including age.
Common Employer Defenses in Mixed-Reason Cases
Employers usually respond to a discrimination claim by pointing to a lawful reason. Under Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a)(1)-(2), FEHA does not prohibit firing an employee with a disability or medical condition who cannot perform essential duties even with reasonable accommodation, or cannot perform them without endangering their own health or safety or that of others. Employers generally must still engage in a good-faith interactive process and provide reasonable accommodation unless doing so would cause undue hardship.
A stated legitimate reason does not automatically end the case. Under CACI 2507, the question remains whether bias was still a substantial motivating reason. Juries may weigh whether the business justification was genuine, consistently applied, and documented before the protected activity occurred.
The Same-Decision Defense
Even if bias was a substantial motivating reason, an employer may try to prove that it would have made the same decision anyway for lawful reasons. Under Harris, if the employer proves this by a preponderance of the evidence, the employee generally cannot recover damages, back pay, or reinstatement. The employee may still obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, and the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. This defense is fact-intensive, and outcomes vary.
💡 Pro Tip: Pay attention to whether your employer’s explanation has shifted over time. A reason given at termination that differs from one later offered in litigation or an agency filing can become meaningful evidence.
Evidence That Can Show Bias Played a Real Role
Documentation often makes the difference between a suspicion and a provable claim. In many cases, the strongest evidence is circumstantial. Helpful materials often include texts and emails from supervisors, performance reviews before and after protected activity, records of ignored complaints, and the time between a medical-leave request and termination. Timing alone may not be enough, but it can be persuasive together with other evidence.
Long-tenured employees may have a meaningful advantage here. Decades of positive reviews can contrast sharply with sudden criticism that appears right after a disability disclosure, pregnancy announcement, or harassment report. Courts may treat that kind of shift as evidence of pretext.
💡 Pro Tip: Save copies of personal records you lawfully possess, such as your own performance reviews and messages sent to your personal phone, before access to company systems ends. Avoid taking confidential company documents you are not authorized to keep.
Watch What You Sign After a Termination
California law limits the agreements employers can impose on current employees. Under Cal. Gov. Code § 12964.5(a), an employer may not require an employee to sign a release of FEHA claims or rights, or a nondisparagement agreement that denies the right to disclose information about unlawful workplace acts, in exchange for a raise or bonus or as a condition of employment. Such provisions are unenforceable. The restriction does not apply to negotiated settlement agreements that resolve a filed claim. You can read the Section 12964.5 restrictions directly.
Severance agreements offered at separation can be enforceable, but they must meet certain requirements. Under Section 12964.5(b), separation agreements with nondisparagement or confidentiality terms must state that the employee may still disclose information about unlawful workplace acts. They must also tell the employee of the right to consult an attorney and give at least five business days to do so.
💡 Pro Tip: Severance packages from large corporations frequently include broad release language. Ask for time to review the agreement rather than signing on the spot.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Do I have to prove discrimination was the only reason I was fired?
No. Under California FEHA as explained in CACI 2507, you generally must show that the protected trait was a substantial motivating reason, not the only reason. However, if the employer proves it would have made the same decision anyway, your remedies may be limited.
2. What is a "remote or trivial reason"?
It is a factor that played only a minor or distant role in the decision. It is not enough to establish FEHA liability.
3. Can I bring a claim if I was demoted instead of fired?
Possibly. Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a) covers discrimination in pay and in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, which can include demotions and denied training.
4. What if I was fired after requesting medical leave?
Cal. Gov. Code § 12945.2(k) prohibits discharging or discriminating against eligible employees for exercising CFRA leave rights. Timing and documentation are often central in these cases.
5. Does my employer’s performance complaint defeat my case?
Not necessarily. A jury may still find that bias was a substantial motivating reason alongside the stated performance concern. If the employer proves it would have fired you anyway, however, your remedies may be limited.
Mixed Motives Still Matter Under California Law
California law recognizes that real-world firing decisions are rarely driven by a single reason. Under FEHA and CACI 2507, an employee may be able to hold an employer accountable when disability, pregnancy, a leave request, a harassment complaint, or another protected trait or activity was a substantial motivating reason for termination. Employer defenses can limit available remedies, and every outcome depends on specific facts. Strict filing deadlines also apply. A FEHA complaint generally must be filed with the California Civil Rights Department within three years.
If you were terminated after decades of service and suspect bias was part of the decision, talking with a CACI 2507 lawyer may help clarify where you stand. Reach out to Kent | Pincin at (310) 424-4991 or contact our team today to discuss your Redondo Beach discrimination concerns.
Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Every case is unique, and results may vary. Consult an attorney about your specific circumstances.