California employers often assume that if an employee’s complaint is legally incorrect, it falls outside the scope of protected activity. That assumption is not only flawed—it is increasingly risky.

A recent decision from the California Court of Appeal, Contreras v. Green Thumb Produce, Inc., reinforces a principle that continues to gain traction in retaliation cases:

An employee can be wrong about the law, and still be protected from retaliation.

For employers, that shift matters.

The Legal Framework

Retaliation claims in California most commonly arise under Labor Code section 1102.5 and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). Under both of the laws, courts focus on whether the employee engaged in protected activity.

Critically, that does not require the employee to be legally correct. Instead, the question is whether the employee had a reasonable belief that the conduct they were opposing was unlawful.

That distinction, between legal accuracy and reasonable belief, is where many employers get into trouble.

What Contreras Tells Us

In Contreras, the employee raised concerns about conduct that did not actually violate the law. From a legal perspective, the complaint failed. But the court did not end the analysis there.

Instead, it focused on the employee’s perspective: whether the employee believed the conduct was unlawful, and whether that belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Because that standard was met, the court allowed the retaliation claim to proceed.

In other words, the legal weakness of the underlying complaint did not eliminate the employer’s exposure for retaliation.

Where the Risk Shifts

This is the point many employers miss. The moment a complaint is made, the analysis shifts.

Employers tend to evaluate the substance of the complaint, but courts are focused on something else entirely: how the employer responded.

Once a concern is raised, the employer’s response—tone, timing, and documentation—becomes the center of the case. The employee’s legal accuracy fades into the background.

The Reasonable Belief Standard

The reasonable belief standard is intentionally flexible. Courts look at the situation from the employee’s standpoint, taking into account what they knew, what they observed, and whether their concern is the type of issue employees commonly associate with legal protections.

It is not a demanding standard. If the concern is plausible in context, that often is enough to move a retaliation claim forward.

So What?

The practical impact of Contreras is not subtle. Employers no longer can rely on the conclusion that a complaint is wrong as a basis for minimizing risk.

A complaint that is legally off-base can still trigger protected activity. And once that happens, any subsequent employment decision will be viewed through a retaliation lens.

This is where exposure develops. Not from the complaint itself, but from what happens next.

Employers that move too quickly to dismiss a concern, allow frustration to influence decision-making, or fail to clearly document legitimate business reasons create unnecessary risk.

A More Defensible Approach

The better approach is straightforward. Treat complaints as protected at the outset, ensure managers elevate rather than evaluate concerns, and carefully document employment decisions.

Most importantly, slow down the response. Many retaliation claims arise from avoidable missteps in the moment.

The Bottom Line

Contreras is a reminder that California continues to interpret protected activity broadly. Employers should stop asking whether the employee is right, and start focusing on whether their response will hold up under scrutiny.