Badge - California Employment Lawyers Association
Badge - Orange County Bar Association
Badge - OCTLA
Badge - Consumer Attorneys of California
Badge - State Bar of California
Badge - American Association for Justice

Employer's Burden to Prove Independent, Legitimate Reasons for Employee Discharge

In employment law, when an employee alleges wrongful termination, the burden often shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the termination was based on independent, legitimate reasons rather than retaliation or discrimination. Here, we will explore the employer's burden of proof, specifically focusing on the requirement to prove by clear and convincing evidence that there were valid reasons for the employee's discharge. We will discuss the legal principles surrounding pretext, including its inference from the timing of the company's decision, the identity of the decision-maker, and the employee's job performance before termination. Additionally, we will highlight relevant cases, including Flait v. North American Watch Corp., that have shaped the legal landscape in this area.

Proving Independent, Legitimate Reasons:

Under established legal principles, an employer must present clear and convincing evidence to substantiate its claim that there were legitimate, independent reasons for an employee's discharge. This higher standard of proof places a substantial burden on the employer, requiring more than a mere preponderance of the evidence. The employer must present compelling evidence to convince the court that its decision was not motivated by retaliatory or discriminatory intent.

Pretext and Inference:

One way that pretext may be established is through the timing of the company's decision. If the termination occurs shortly after the employee engaged in protected activity, such as reporting misconduct or asserting legal rights, it raises suspicions of retaliation. Courts recognize that proximity in time between protected activity and adverse employment actions can create an inference of pretext, suggesting that the termination was not based on legitimate reasons.

The identity of the decision-maker can also be relevant. If the decision-maker is someone who had previously shown bias or hostility towards the employee, it raises questions about the legitimacy of the reasons given for termination. The decision-maker's discriminatory or retaliatory motives may cast doubt on the employer's claim of independent, legitimate reasons.

Furthermore, an employee's job performance before termination can be significant in assessing pretext. If the employee had a strong track record of satisfactory performance or positive evaluations, it becomes harder for the employer to justify the termination based on poor performance. In such cases, the employer must present compelling evidence to demonstrate a decline in performance or other legitimate reasons for the discharge.

Relevant Cases:

Flait v. North American Watch Corp. is a notable case that explores pretext in the context of employee termination. Although specific details of the case were not provided, Flait likely presented circumstances where the court found pretextual reasons for the employee's discharge. The court's analysis likely considered factors such as timing, decision-maker bias, and the employee's job performance to assess the employer's burden of proof.

Other Relevant Cases Include:

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (2000): The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can establish pretext by showing that the employer's explanation for the adverse employment action is "unworthy of credence."

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973): This landmark case established the burden-shifting framework for employment discrimination claims, wherein an employee must first establish a prima facie case, after which the burden shifts to the employer to present legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the employment action.

Consult an Employment Law Attorney:

Understanding the nuances of proving independent, legitimate reasons for employee discharge can be complex. If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated and suspect pretextual reasons, it is crucial to consult with an experienced employment law attorney. They can evaluate the specific details of your case, analyze relevant laws and precedents, and provide personalized guidance tailored to your circumstances.

Contact Nassiri Law:

At Nassiri Law, we are dedicated to protecting the rights of employees. If you believe you have been wrongfully terminated and need legal representation, we are here to help. Our experienced attorneys, led by Damian Nassiri, have a proven track record of advocating for employees' rights. Call us at 949-375-4734 to schedule a consultation and explore your options.


Employers bear the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that they had independent, legitimate reasons for an employee's discharge. The inference of pretext can arise from various factors, such as the timing of the company's decision, the identity of the decision-maker, and the employee's job performance before termination. Understanding these legal principles and seeking the assistance of an employment law attorney can be crucial in asserting your rights and pursuing remedies if you have been wrongfully terminated.

Client Reviews
From the moment I walked in until the moment I stepped out, I felt welcome at Damian’s law offices. His staff is very courteous, and Damian conversates with you in a manner that is understandable. He leaves the lawyer talk for the courthouses and really explains the laws in detail, but at the same time in a manner so that the average Joe can follow. Thank you for your services! Rodrigo Aranda
Hands down the most educated expert in cannabis law! Mr Nassiri is such a pleasure to work with, hes real with you and looks out for the best interest of yourself and your business. I really appreciate his input and I am proud to have him as my attorney. Bstyle Kim
I appreciate an intensive behavior of Nassiri Law group. Damian did a great job. When I met him, I immediately realized that this is the person I want to work with. He helped me a lot by answering all my questions in a wise and professional approach. He provided to me all important info what I needed at that time. Honestly, I think that Damian is one of the best Lawyers I have ever met. Aleksey Globenko