California makes it a crime for a former employer to use “any misrepresentation” to keep a former worker from getting a new job, under Labor Code section 1050. The statute also gives the worker a civil claim for treble damages. Truthful statements, given when a prospective employer asks for them, are protected. Most claims turn on three questions: what was said, whether it was true, and who asked first.
What does section 1050 prohibit?
Lying to block a former employee’s job prospects. Section 1050 applies to any person, agent, or officer who, after discharging an employee or after the employee “voluntarily left such service, by any misrepresentation prevents or attempts to prevent the former employee from obtaining employment.” A violation is a misdemeanor.
The word that matters in the statute is “misrepresentation.” The statute doesn’t bar negative references, and it doesn’t require employers to stay silent. It bars false statements used to keep someone from being hired. An attempt is enough, so a plaintiff doesn’t need to prove the false statement actually cost them the job to show a violation, though damages are another question.
The company can be on the hook for its managers. Under section 1052, a person who “knowingly causes, suffers, or permits an agent, superintendent, manager, or employee in his employ” to violate the statute, or “who fails to take all reasonable steps within his power to prevent such violation,” also commits a misdemeanor.
Why is the civil claim a concern?
Because of the damages multiplier. Section 1054 says a violator “is liable to the party aggrieved, in a civil action, for treble damages.” The worker can sue “without first establishing any criminal liability.”
In practice, a blacklisting count usually appears next to defamation and interference claims after a former employee learns of a bad reference or loses an offer. The treble damages provision makes the count worth more than its usual role suggests. A lost offer with a modest salary difference can become a much larger number once trebled.
Plaintiffs still have to prove the elements. A former employee who thinks a reference hurt them, but who can’t show what was said or that it was false, has a weak claim. Discovery from the prospective employer often settles the question either way.
What protects a truthful reference?
Section 1053. It says nothing in the chapter prevents an employer “from furnishing, upon special request therefor, a truthful statement concerning the reason for the discharge of an employee or why an employee voluntarily left the service of the employer.”
Two conditions are built into that protection. The statement must be truthful, and it must be given “upon special request.” The same section adds a warning: if a statement uses “any mark, sign, or other means conveying information different from that expressed by words therein,” or was “given without a special request therefor,” that is prima facie evidence of a violation.
So the riskiest conduct is volunteering information. A manager who calls a competitor unprompted to warn them off a former employee, or posts about the person in an industry group, has given up the statute’s safe harbor even if the statements are mostly true. Coded references, such as a tone of voice or a phrase like “check with HR,” can raise the same concern.
How does this fit with defamation law?
It overlaps but isn’t the same. Civil Code section 47(c) gives a qualified privilege to a communication “concerning the job performance or qualifications of an applicant for employment, based upon credible evidence, made without malice, by a current or former employer of the applicant to, and upon request of, one whom the employer reasonably believes is a prospective employer of the applicant.”
Both rules reward the same practice: answer only when asked, and stick to facts the company can document. The firm covers the defamation side in a separate post on defamation claims over employment references.
Blacklisting rules and how they apply
| Conduct | Risk | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| False statement to block a new job | Misdemeanor and treble damages | Lab. Code 1050, 1054 |
| Truthful reason for discharge, given on request | Protected | Lab. Code 1053 |
| Unrequested statement to a prospective employer | Prima facie evidence of a violation | Lab. Code 1053 |
| Coded mark or sign in a reference | Prima facie evidence of a violation | Lab. Code 1053 |
| Manager’s violation the company allowed | Employer exposure | Lab. Code 1052 |
When a former employee claims the company blocked a job
- Preserve emails, texts, call logs, and notes of any contact with the prospective employer, plus the former employee’s separation file.
- Calendar the response deadline on the demand or complaint, and check whether an arbitration agreement or an EPLI policy with notice requirements applies.
- Identify every manager who spoke with the prospective employer or anyone in the industry about the former employee, and tell them to stop discussing the person.
- Pull the documents that support what was said, such as performance reviews, the termination memo, and any written reference policy.
- Talk to a lawyer before contacting the former employee, the prospective employer, or anyone else about the claim.
The firm’s page on employment defense for California businesses explains how it handles claims from former employees.
Blacklisting questions from employers
Should we adopt a neutral-reference policy?
Many employers do. Confirming only dates of employment and job title, routed through HR, lowers the chance a manager says something the company can’t support. The tradeoff is that the company gives up the chance to warn a prospective employer about real problems. Whatever the policy, write it down, train managers on it, and enforce it the same way for everyone.
Can a manager give a personal reference?
The risk doesn’t disappear because the manager says it’s personal. A prospective employer will usually treat a supervisor’s comments as coming from the company, and section 1052 reaches employers that knowingly permit violations. Managers who want to give references should follow the company’s policy.
Does the statute apply to a worker who quit?
Yes. Section 1050 covers employees who were discharged and those who “voluntarily left.” A worker who resigned to join a competitor is protected the same way, which matters when a departure is bitter.
Is a no-rehire answer a blacklisting risk?
Not if it’s true and given on request. Civil Code section 47(c) authorizes an employer to answer, without malice, “whether or not the employer would rehire a current or former employee.” Keep the reason documented in the file.
If a former employee says your company kept them from a job
If a former employee has sent a demand or filed a lawsuit claiming your company blocked a new job, the exact words used and who asked for them usually decide the claim. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving references and post-employment statements. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statutes are Labor Code sections 1050, 1052, 1053, and 1054, and Civil Code section 47.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.