California Labor Code Section 230(a): Jury Duty, Court Appearances, and Your Right to Keep Your Job

HOME > EMPLOYMENT LAW

Last updated: March 2026 — Reflects AB 406 amendments

Most California employees know they cannot be fired for serving on a jury. Fewer know exactly how that protection works, what changed in 2025 and 2026, or what remedies exist when an employer retaliates anyway.

Labor Code Section 230(a) is brief in text but broad in application — and the consequences of violating it have grown more significant with recent amendments.

If your employer discharged you, cut your hours, or otherwise penalized you for jury service or a court appearance, this statute is where your analysis starts.

Section 230(a) sits within a larger framework of California employee protections.

For the full landscape of rights that apply when an employer takes adverse action against a worker, see our guide to California employment law. If the retaliation for jury service led to a termination, the wrongful termination analysis is covered in detail in our guide on California wrongful termination.

What Section 230(a) Actually Says

The operative text of Labor Code Section 230(a) is direct: an employer may not discharge or in any manner discriminate against an employee for taking time off to serve as required by law on an inquest jury or trial jury.

The statute covers both forms of jury service — coroner’s inquest juries and civil or criminal trial juries — and prohibits not just termination but any form of discrimination tied to that service.

That language — “in any manner discriminate” — is significant. Courts have applied it to cover demotions, schedule changes designed to make continued employment untenable, denied promotions, and adverse performance reviews issued in the aftermath of jury service.

Until AB 406 took partial effect on October 1, 2025, employees were required to give their employer reasonable advance notice before taking time off for jury service.

That requirement has been eliminated for traditional jury duty leave. Under the amended law, if an employee misses work unexpectedly for jury service and cannot provide advance notice, the employer cannot take adverse action provided the employee supplies documentation of the service within a reasonable time after the absence.

The practical effect is that an employer who disciplines or terminates a worker for an unannounced jury absence is now on weaker ground than at any point in the statute’s history — the employee’s failure to give notice is no longer a defense.

The Broader Section 230 Framework: What Else Is Protected

Section 230(a) is one subdivision within a statute that covers several related protections, and employees who focus only on (a) often miss rights that apply to their specific situation.

Subpoenaed witness appearances — Section 230(b)

Section 230(b) prohibits discharge or retaliation against an employee who takes time off to appear in court as a witness under subpoena or other court order. This applies regardless of the subject matter of the proceeding and regardless of which party issued the subpoena.

An employee summoned to testify in a civil case between two third parties is as protected as one called to testify in a criminal proceeding. The employer has no right to refuse the absence and no right to penalize it after the fact.

Crime victim leave — Section 230(c) and 2026 expansion

Section 230(c) prohibits retaliation against employees who take time off to seek relief — including restraining orders and injunctive relief — related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

This protection was substantially expanded by AB 406, which added a new category of protected leave effective January 1, 2026: employees (and their family members) who are victims of certain serious felonies — including felony domestic violence, felony stalking, and sexual assault — are now entitled to take job-protected time off to attend any judicial proceeding related to that crime.

Covered proceedings include post-arrest release hearings, plea proceedings, sentencing, post-conviction proceedings, and any hearing where the victim’s rights are at issue. This protection sits at the intersection of Section 230 and the newly enacted Government Code Section 12945.8, with enforcement authority split between the DLSE (for conduct through December 31, 2024) and the Civil Rights Department (for conduct from January 1, 2025 forward).

Paid sick leave now covers jury service — AB 406

Effective October 1, 2025, Labor Code Section 246.5 was amended to allow employees to use accrued paid sick leave for jury service and court witness appearances. Previously, jury duty absences were only protected as unpaid leave — employees had to use PTO or take unpaid time.

The amendment means an employee can now draw on their paid sick bank for jury service without fear of retaliation. Employers who deny this use, or who discipline employees for exercising it, face exposure under both Section 230 and the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act.

What “Retaliation” Looks Like in Practice

Most Section 230(a) violations do not come in the form of an immediate post-jury termination with a note saying “fired for jury duty.” They come in slower, more deniable forms.

A long-tenured employee returns from three weeks of jury service on a complex civil case and finds their largest client account has been reassigned. A supervisor who resented covering for a juror begins documenting marginal performance issues that were never documented before.

A worker who missed a product launch while serving on a jury is passed over for a bonus, with the explanation that they “weren’t there when it counted.”

California courts evaluate these situations by looking at the full timeline: what the employee’s standing was before jury service, what changed after it, and whether the employer’s stated reason for any adverse action holds up under scrutiny.

Temporal proximity — the close timing between protected activity and an adverse action — is among the strongest circumstantial evidence available.

An employer who acts against a worker within weeks of a jury return, without documented pre-existing performance problems, faces a difficult road.

When retaliation under Section 230 culminates in a termination, the discharged employee has a wrongful termination claim under the Tameny doctrine — a discharge in violation of public policy.

The California Supreme Court has long recognized civic participation rights, including jury service, as the type of fundamental public policy the Tameny tort is designed to protect.

That means the claim sounds in tort, not just contract, which opens the door to emotional distress damages and — where the employer’s conduct is egregious — punitive damages under Civil Code Section 3294.

Enforcement: How Section 230 Claims Are Pursued

Section 230 retaliation claims can be pursued through the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), also known as the Labor Commissioner’s office, or through direct civil litigation.

The DLSE route is available for violations occurring through December 31, 2024, under the reinstated enforcement authority granted by AB 406. For conduct occurring from January 1, 2025 forward, the Civil Rights Department (CRD) has jurisdiction over Section 230 violations that also constitute discrimination under FEHA, while direct civil suits remain available for the pure

Labor Code claims.

A terminated employee whose discharge was tied to jury service will typically have concurrent claims: a Tameny tort (no administrative exhaustion required, two-year statute of limitations under CCP Section 335.1) and a FEHA retaliation claim if the employer had five or more employees (three-year deadline to file with the CRD under AB 9).

Identifying all viable theories and their deadlines at the outset is critical. For a detailed look at how retaliation claims are built and proven, see our guide to retaliation laws in California.

What Employees Should Do If They Face Retaliation

If you believe your employer penalized you for jury service or a court appearance, document everything immediately: the date of your summons, when and how you notified your employer, the length of your service, and the precise sequence of events after your return.

Note any shift in your supervisor’s treatment, changes to your assignments, or performance criticism that appeared after your service but had no documented history before it.

Do not sign a severance agreement without legal review. Employers who want to resolve a potential Section 230 claim quickly will sometimes offer a package framed as a “restructuring.” Signing releases your claims. An attorney can evaluate whether the amount reflects their actual value — and in many cases, it does not.

The notice requirement changes under AB 406 are worth knowing specifically: if you were dismissed or disciplined for failing to give advance notice of jury service, that defense is no longer available to your employer for absences occurring after October 1, 2025. An employer who relies on the absence of advance notice to justify termination is applying a rule that no longer exists.

If your employer discharged or penalized you for serving on a jury or appearing in court, California law provides you with concrete remedies — but those remedies have deadlines. 1000Attorneys.com connects California employees with experienced and vetted employment attorneys who handle California wrongful termination and retaliation cases on contingency. A free initial consultation costs nothing. Waiting until a statute of limitations runs can cost everything.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. California employment law is fact-specific. For guidance on your particular situation, consult a licensed California employment attorney.